Hello, I am a fellow Protestant for what I know so far, I’ve been considering Catholicism for a little while, but also leaning heavily to Orthodox as well, but I haven’t become a catholic for a few reasons, I would like some guidance on them, firstly, I can’t seem to reconcile praying to angels, is there hidden information that I don’t know about that we SHOULD pray to angels? I also can’t reconcile praying to mortal dead men, if praying to angels were to make sense in SOME way, humans are way different because we are subject to sin, the angels aren’t (at least the holy angels) I’m also confused on how salvation works according to Catholicism can you guide me on that as well? Thank you God bless
Or those who saw one deluded religionist debating ANOTHER deluded religionist, both of whom had a far from perfect understanding of objective morality.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Get outta here, that’s irrelevant to the debate, if you got problems with the classical view of Gods existence take that to a video on Gods existence, not a video on Ethics. You’re just raging out, irrelevantly replying to every comment with an objection to theism. Find a way to spend your time and energy that makes sense, you’re making objections in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
Absolutely Brilliant debate! Great content Matt ....I actually started out on Dr Smith's position, but over the debate I found myself drifiting over to Fr Gregory's side especially his response at 45:00, Really eloquent and it very much resonated with me.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices And you are a brilliant example of someone wasting their time. If you are right and we are deluded why do you care? Leave us alone in our delusion.
@@logansweet4190 That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave? Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices What am I presuming exactly? That you are wasting your time? That is just based on your point of view. From your perspective we are deluded, but overall harmless to you, so there is no point in being here other than being annoying. Which does have some humor value I guess, but I am sure you can find better ways to entertain yourself. Go watch a Dave Chappelle special. You will find it funnier than trolling here trust me.
After listening to Fr Pine's opening position, I almost thought the matter was settled... that there would be no way Dr Smith could effectively counter it. Now, after hearing her well thought out reasoning which is intellectually satisfying, I am grateful for her courage in addressing this issue. She makes perfect sense and has convinced me that her position is correct.
I was exactly on the opposite camp and I started to think Fr Pine’s position is the one correct here even though I wasn’t sympathetic to it at the first glance. Let me explain. I started more inclined to defend Dr Janet Smith’s position due to the fact that extreme evil simply exists and maybe some situations would demand us to adopt her approach, contrary to what appeared to be a moral rigorism. Her approach seemed also more naturally adaptable to St Alphonsus Maria Liguori’s moral theology, for example, a Doctor of the Church who is (in my humble opinion) the greatest moral theologian in history. As a lawyer as St Alphosus himself, I am always magnetically driven to his gigantic “Moral Theology” volumes (but I couldn’t find lying to save lives of the others in his pages though). But after the debate, I respected the Thomistic view on “lies are always wrong” much more than I thought I rationally would in the first place. What was decisive for me is that Fr Pine is emphatic in defending there is not one single human act in lying so as to protect the Jews from the Nazis but two acts, one appearing to be instrumental to the other: the saving of Jews from Nazis being the virtuous and charitable one; the lie as a means to saving people being the sinful instrument for it albeit the nature of sin couldn’t be but light and venial, since we can’t find grave malice in it. On the other hand, Dr Janet Smith seemed to presuppose our intellectual operations would come in one single simple act and therefore it could not be sinful to lie to save someone’s life. To what I question: are our operations of the intellect identical to God’s? What I started to notice is that performing things that are bad so as to achieve results that are good can be a very, very tricky position and maybe drive us to some kind of a cryptic moral relativism. Of course one would say that the thing is not actually bad (lying) since it is ordered to do good (saving the Jews from the Nazis) so the point is justly to say it is not bad or wrong in the first place. But isn’t it the EXACT argument Machiavelli used in his political theory and his controversial ethics? Isn’t he precisely saying the morality of the means can be justified by the virtue of the ends so that the ends will always justify the means? Wasn’t in fact Dr Janet Smith too dependent on this example of saving the Jews or other extreme ones to make her case? Maybe their disagreement was exactly into this, I mean, that one (Dr Janet Smith) sees one simple act and the other sees two distinguishable mental acts (Fr Pine), “act 1” in ordering the conscience - teleologically - to the savings of the Jews and “act 2” in ordering the conscience - instrumentally - to lie so as to achieve it. As an example, look at what Fr Pine says here: 1:15:25. I think I ended up much more attracted to Fr Gregory Pine’s argument to be sincere.
@@masterchief8179 Double effect. A lie is intrinsically evil/wrong--analogously, murder is intrinsically evil, stealing is intrinsically evil, etc. We can never, as Machiavelli suggests, do an intrinsic evil for a good reason. Dr. Smith is making a distinction that includes a "specifying feature" to the act of telling a falsehood to a person who doesn't deserve to know the truth (pertaining to the good being sought) and a falsehood. Her definition (which is in the Catechism originally and I have been teaching without knowing this portion was deleted!) is the only definition that answers all these questions (undercover cops, spies, espionage, military secrets, Santa Claus, etc.). It is a matter of justice.
@@cml2176 Still I dare to say it gets us somewhat very close to the kind of moral relativism that is implied in Machiavelli’s ethic and political theory’s position on moral philosophy: if the ends are legitimate, then the means are not to be morally condemned. That’s what I was afraid to conclude even though it is far more nuanced. Since saving the Jews is a good - and she adhere to the “implicitly clause” that says that this good is much greater than the magnitude of the bad in not conveying the truth “per se” -, then it is not that lying to save Jews from the Nazi’s Gestapo becomes a lesser evil but it becomes no evil at all. And the kind of definition of telling a falsehood (rather than lying) using the “specifying feature” of admitting it is not a lie if the person who gets the speech is not entitled to know the truth will eventually rely on a “hidden premise”: the assumption that a moral intuition, prior to the moral reasoning process, could make us achieve this kind of discernment. So the rationality by which we believe the (arguably bad) means to an (obvious good) end is justified relies too much on that kind of moral intuition Dr Janet talked about. Then I fear by strict coherence that Dr Janet can ultimate this reasoning by defending that the wrong evaluations on the core relations between means and ends ought NOT to be seen as a theme of intrinsic moral wrongness but as a matter of a bad moral intuition in understanding and deciphering the precise equation (of relations on means and ends). She explicitly said moral intuitions can be right or wrong in her final five minutes statement. To what I question if there is a real moral objectivity if we stretch things too much, or if it is aleatory to some considerable degree and we must then concede we will eventually stand on relying too much on our moral intuitions guiding those equations (of means and ends). So what I say here is that the Soviet Communists thought that practicing genocide from starvation in the Ukranian Holodomor was a means to achieve a greater good, namely the propulsion and the survival of the revolutionary processes and the propagation of the communist cause. So to the greater extent we should say it is not that practicing genocide is intrinsically evil (immoral, therefore sinful) but it was rather a problem of bad calibration on the moral intuitions on the part of Communist Party leaders and Soviet bureaucrats. I know one could say this Holodomor example is extreme in judging the morality of murder, but the same argument should be made in judging the morality of lying in the case of lying to save the life of the Jews from the Nazis. It was extreme too. Even acknowledging she specifically said murdering “innocent people” is always wrong, therefore giving adhesion to a premise she didn’t assume for lying, I fear two things here would necessarily follow (one, other or both): 1) one, that those assumptions in evaluating the moral differences in lying and murdering were maybe “a priori” and/or apodictic, an ‘accusation’ she happens to address to Fr Pine; 2) that by the same kind of reasoning she would adhere to some definition of “innocent” people, assuming the Soviets simply could say the Ukranian massacred people weren’t innocent, to what I sense we would admit there is space for arbitrarily define things if they fail to have an intrinsic moral consistency. I don’t have ANY doubt that a communist who says those massacres were legitimate due to the circumstances, despite being bad, to what he or she says the ends justified the means (and I have a friend just like that) simply will think it is much more fitting to say actually it was not intrinsically bad at all by virtue of the contextualizations and of “moral intuitions” that happens to be good or bad from time to time. I know murder is different but I couldn’t help but notice her argument somehow relied upon some sort of arbitrary “a priori” assumptions, I guess. But the problem for me is that it is exactly the encyclopedic definition for “moral relativism”. I am not saying that I agree entirely with Fr Pine’s position on lying, but Catholics should avoid moral relativism as the devil avoids the cross - and that made me reject the kind of argumentation Dr Janet used. And that’s what called my attention so deeply in the first place. I studied moral philosophy much more than I studied moral theology - and that thing didn’t cease to surprise me here when I finally thought it through.
This is probably my favorite debate I've seen on Pints so far! At the end, I found myself more convinced by Dr. Smiths arguments, but it was close. Fr Pine was brilliant as always!
This is incredibly thought provoking. I would lean towards lying being always wrong, BUT I certainly don’t think I could necessarily defend my stance at this point because Dr Smith made some great points I’ve never considered. Thank you for hosting this, it’s awesome!
This was excellent. They only spoke over my head a few times, so I learned a lot. Glad I don't have to declare a winner, because both provided great arguments. One thing I did wish they would have addressed more is the lie of omission.
Thank you both for this great discussion. I know that I need to hear this again as there were many nuances. Being a Dominican Sister and knowing our Charism is Veritas. I continue to learn and need to integrate what I have heard. I do try to speak the Truth in love and yet I know like St. Paul, I have weaknesses and yet I rely like Paul on the Mercy of God. Blessings and peace in all your ministries to bring us to the Truth and give glory to God by not telling lies that I know is a lie. I have learned “Seldom affirm, Never deny and Always distinguish.” Gratefully, Sr. Brigid
Simply beautiful. Poetry in motion to watch two brilliant theologians have a rigorous debate. I had been looking forward to this since Matt announced it would happen, and it certainly did not disappoint. I don’t know on whose side I fall, lots to continue to consider. Thanks, PWA!
I also emphatically fist pumped when Fr. Pine reminded us (somewhat too subtly, I would say) that God and His Providence are still out there, and it feels like most of this debate forgets this fact. If we admit Fr. Pine’s argument about the absoluteness of truth and genuinely want to please God by never lying, do we have enough faith in Him to speak the truth (or Truth) if Nazis come around?
That argument is only worth treating if we grant that he's right about it being God's will that we never lie. It is therefore not valuable to me, as someone who is not already convinced by him. This is why, to his credit, he only mentioned it in passing.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼 There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity.🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩 P. S. When I typed “There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above”, I was obviously being sarcastic, since, objectively speaking, your inane drivel was fully inebriated with a plethora of nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts. 🙄
Lying inherently fractures relationships (not good). Also, lying sets us up to lie in the future, so that our first lie is validated or least not contradicted. Both of these points opens the door for the enemy to have a field day.
I'm really torn, but I'm leaning towards lying always being wrong. One thing I'd ask is whether or not bodily death of a human being is contrary to eternal law. I think the only way you can say that lying is always wrong, but killing is not always wrong is by saying that the expression of falsehood contrary to eternal law, but the bodily death of a human being is not contrary to eternal law. I think that makes sense though.
Good point. I think the only way Dr Smith's position is defensible is if you define lying in the way the 1992 Catechism does. Not saying that definition needs to be accepted but I couldn't think of any reason to reject it either (especially considering that the side I'm leaning towards requires that killing is not always wrong but lying is). But you have provided a reason to reject the 1992 definition.
@@don7502 We need to consider that Aquinas was making philosophical observations (enlightened by Divine Revelation and Tradition) in the manner of theogians...he isn't spot on everything...so there is nothing delitorious about the definition of lie in the 1992 CCC.
Just have to say this is an incredible debate and discussion, one of my favorite episodes. Thank you to Dr. Smith and Fr. Pine for the excellent points made and Matt Fradd for bringing us such a great debate!
Around 1:16:00 is where I hear the argument that convinced me that lying is always a sin... I began to consider that our already complex morality is being made more complicated when we lie, even for good reasons, when telling the truth might allow us to cooperate with God’s plan in the process of healing the broken-ness that entered the world at the fall.
I also disagree with Dr. Smith that a joke is the same thing as a jocose lie. I disagree that the intent of a joke is to deceive. The intent of a joke is to surprise or shock, and often a person is led through deception, but ultimately a joke-teller doesn't want their conversation partner walking away from the conversation believing whatever falsehood they used to make the joke. I mean, when we make a joke and it's misunderstood, our immediate reaction is to clear up the misunderstanding. When we lie, unless we repent, we generally want the person who we've lied to to believe the lie indefinitely.
That is very inconsistent. This is utilitarianism with jokes but not with saving lives. Your argument is that *ultimately* with a joke, though you intentionally deceive temporarily, it's okay cuz it's temporary and you wanna do something good (amuse). Couldn't I just as easily apply *everything* you just said to one of Smith's examples: the soldier who wants the Enemy to believe they'll be attacked at a different time in different manner? *Ultimately* he wants something good (beating Nazis) and it's only a temporary deception. See, Smirh says deceiving people who've a right to the truth is always wrong. No exceptions. Pine says any and all deceptions are wrong.....except for jokes. He------ he ~~~~ is the one making situational exceptions to the moral law; you just don't notice cuz his exceptions are absurd
Honestly, I reasoned through this with an example of a joke and I think you're probably right. I was going to argue that because deception is the act of causing someone to accept something as true that is false, or valid that is invalid, a joke does not deceive. My argument was going to be that a joke sometimes entails one to speak falsehood, but the intent of the jester is not to deceive, but instead cause the person to recognize the falsehood and surprise them. Then I took an example: Bob: "I invented a new word." Amy: "Oh yeah, what is it?" Bob: "Plagiarism." I think it's fair to say that Bob was in fact lying because he spoke the first sentence with the intention to deceive Amy, even if only temporarily. Yeah, okay, I agree with you. Hmm, now I have to think harder on this, because you're right that in order to argue that lying is always wrong, you would need to argue that Bob sinned when he told that joke, but that seems intuitively wrong. This whole debate really boils down then to 2 questions I think: 1. Is lying inherently evil? If not, then lying is not always wrong. If yes, then... 2. Is it possible to intentionally perform an inherently evil act and not be sinning? If no, then lying is always wrong. If yes, then lying is not always wrong. The Church definitively says no to the second question in CCC 1755, so the only way for lying to be sometimes okay is for lying to not be inherently evil.
By Dr. Smith’s definition of lying, it would seem that she thinks that lying is always wrong (if lying is telling a falsehood to someone who has a right to the truth).
Never lie to dementia patients. Your answer should redirect them to something positive, that they loved, while still staying on topic. Ex: “When is Harry coming home?”(the husband who is deceased). Caregiver: “You loved it when he came home, didn’t you? What was his favorite dinner you’d cook for him?” Through your redirecting questions explore all kinds of loved filled memories.
Regarding Santa Clause...I definitely believed whole-heartedly for too long. In Grade 7 I stood in front of my class and passionately defended my position against the rest of my class, explaining that I had personally seen him flying with his reindeer (I can still vividly remember seeing it?!). The fact that nobody else believed, however, seemed to sway my absolute belief at least enough to cause me to come up with a plan. One of the presents I received from Santa was a pair of shorts. Some time after Christmas I wore the shorts and casually asked my mom where she bought them. AND she TOLD ME! I gasped. She gasped. My world crumbled but we laughed and laughed. I still have fond memories of Santa regardless of my embarrassment but I typically embrace embarrassment easily so long as it's humourous. As a parent, I think I've struck a decent balance. I think I tend toward Father Pine and Matt's perspective so I try very hard never to lie. I typically turn the question back to my children and ask what they believe and would never tell them flat out, "yes Santa, as the world sees him now, is completely real." That being said, I love what C.S. Lewis had to say on the topic very very much...well sort of on the topic...when responding to a little girl about her concern over loving Aslan more than Jesus. In any case, 2 of my kids have figured it out, but they play along well under threat of "if you don't believe in Santa you don't get a gift from Santa *wink wink* *nudge nudge*" - haha!
This was fantastic. After listening, I'd love to hear more thoughts on whether it's ok to decide I prefer the definition of lying in the '92 version of the CCC. To develop that, what should a faithful Catholic's stance be in regards to the CCC? I was initially taught to love it (and I do). Then I starting hearing fellow traditionally-minded people speak ill of it. Finally, I've heard that some misguided individuals (I'm sure that's putting it too charitably) would like to see words like "disordered" redacted from some pretty important places. Add the option of preferring a previously unabridged definition of lying and, well, I wonder what sort of ground I'm building on here. The winds blew and the floods came! Also, I'd just like to say that seeing Fr. Pine piece together, e.g., a moral framework of humor on the spot is truly as enjoyable as watching a fantastically trained athlete. I'm in awe of the speed and precision with which he builds up a cohesive stance from well-ingrained research and fundamental principles. I put all this work into a comment only to just notice it's all 2 years old! Oh well, if you read this God bless :)
Blessed Migel Pro masqueraded as a street sweeper. Was that a moral wrong? Why would it only be morally wrong when verbalized, but not just acted out??
Msgr. Hugh O'Flarehty masqueraded to smuggled allies and Jews out of Nazi occupied Italy...and told many falsehoods in word and pen to Nazi officials. His determination eventually won over the commanding Nazi who ended up converting. I understand that lying is intrinsically evil, but telling a falsehood to one who doesn't deserve to know the truth is heroic. Telling a Nazi that there are Jews in my home doesn't convert the Nazi--it proves I am a coward.
So, if you were asked if you knew where the priest was hiding and you responded non- verbally with a puzzled look and shrug of the shoulders, would that not also be a deception of communication???
When I leave the lights on before leaving home, am I also being deceptive to would-be criminals who would otherwise ransack my home? In this case am I sinning?
Not an expert here, but correct me if i am wrong. it seems to me that this may not be a sin because this may count as ‘mental reservation’. There are several possibilities that a person leaves his lights on: 1) because he is at home, 2) he is not at home, but he forgot to switch off his lights, 3) he is just going away for a short while so he think it is troublesome to turn them off, 4) no reason at all, 5) because the house looks prettier, etc... In this case, the pedestrians do not need to know the reason for which you switch on your light. The criminal thinks there is a possibility that there might be people in the house, but that is just one of the possibilities, and it is very likely that the criminal knows that a house with lights may have people in it, but not necessarily. Also, there is sufficient reason to withhold the reason behind leaving the lights on to the criminal, who doesn’t need to know the reason behind your every actions. Perhaps looking up which type of mental reservation is permitted would be of help. Have a nice day!
no deception is not a sin. lying is a sin. speech has its teological end for truth. To say something contrary to truth is a lie. An abuse of speech. but keep your lights on to decieve is not sinful in the least its wise. you haven't done anything contrary to the natural law.
I continue to reflect on this, and as I do, I become so aware of the pernicious and naive mistakes at work in the position that believes some falsehoods are moral. I also keep thinking that Father Pine mounted an argument, whereas Dr. Smith seemed to appeal more to emotion throughout and bounce around. I want to say not seeing the strength, beauty, and power of Father Pine's position is at bottom a failure to really grasp the nature of the fight we're in as fallen souls and as Christians. Other thoughts: the way to bridge the gap between the first version of the Catechism's teaching on lying and the current one, it seems to me, is that everyone, by virtue of being an image of God, has a right to the truth. This means there is no substantive difference between the first and second versions. That said, while I tend strongly toward Father Pine's position, the idea of mental reservation seems to warrant more thought. I think if one can reasonably assume the question from the Nazis at the door to actually be, "Are you hiding anyone [we want to kill]?", then saying "No" to that is the truth.
@Ed I appreciate this response. I had seen your comment about this earlier in the thread. For my own part, I don't find Father Pine's position (which is also supported by saints and agrees with the Catechism) attractive so much because it is absolute and allows me to know what I as a subjective person ought to do in a hard situation. I find it attractive because it is such a sacrifice of pure love and pure faithfulness to the God Who is Truth Itself, made out of true and tender faith in God's power to bring good out of suffering. If one were in this position and refused to lie for love of God--Who, by the way, we are to love above neighbor, and for the sake of Whom we love our neighbor in the first place--the consolation would not be, "Well at least I am in a state of grace!" It would be, "Lord, you are my portion forever, I trust in You." I thought Father Pine's points about apostasy and the saints who refused to do so capture this same radical love and faith so well. My own patron, St. Perpetua, refused to deny Christ even though she had just given birth to a little boy and her father pleaded with her to do so so she could live. That Dr. Smith said she could be "persuaded" that even denying the faith as a lie could be permissible betrays much about the blindspot in this vision of what it means to love God and neighbor alike, for indeed, we never do more for our neighbor than when we sacrifice for love of God. (The movie A Hidden Life speaks to these themes very powerfully and beautifully. Every soul should watch it.) I loved when Father Pine brought up St. John Henry Newman's point that we should prefer the destruction of the entire material universe to the commission of a single sin. If only we knew how sweet and worthy Our Lord is of our all! As far as the idea that we should not celebrate the lying, but we simply tolerate it in some cases--this is not Dr. Smith's argument because this admits lying is a sin. She would say in some cases falsehoods are not the sin of lying, but are themselves morally laudable. How to square that with God's essence as Truth and Love Itself is impossible. But either position falls short of being Perfect Love even as our Father is. One more point: I have heard accounts of times Christians refused to lie in dangerous situations, and the Lord blessed their faith immediately. One account was of a man escaping from Vietnam. He was sneaking into a boat at night when guards came up and asked what he was doing out. He made up an excuse and lied, and when they walked away, he immediately confessed it to God and said he would never do that again. He ran into the guards later, and again they pressed him about what he was up to, and he told them the truth. Their response? They wanted to go with him! According to the source of the story, the man lives in CA now.
@Ed Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that we are not truly ourselves, especially our redeemed selves, until we are free to love as Christ does on the Cross, and this fact is rooted in the very nature of our creation, and our new creation by baptism. At the same time, for some reason, the term "self-sacrifice" seems not the right term to employ in the present discussion--as in using "self-sacrifice" to equal "good", where we mean I end up dying, and all other forms of 'sacrifice' (as in someone else ends up suffering in some way following a choice we've made) as bad and not in themselves a form of self-giving/surrender/sacrifice. I'm feathering this out as I write, so forgive me if this lacks the clarity Fr. Pine is so readily able to bring! To me, refusing to lie in our hypothetical case is an immolation of self in the Divine Will for the sake of love, obedience, humility, faith, and hope. Why hope? Because we believe in the positive feedback loop (rooted in the Trinity and trinitarian architecture of reality) that giving ourselves and our souls over entirely to Christ will indeed be the best thing we can possibly do even for our neighbor, especially for our neighbor's soul. St. Perpetua is an amazing example of this. Her father did not beg her to deny Christ and live for her own sake--he begged her to deny Christ and live for the sake of her little boy. She refused, was killed, and her little boy was left here without her. And yet, in abandoning all to God in holy martyrdom, she actually did more for her son than she could have ever done by any other earthly act. She showed him the true way, the way to true life, in Christ, and she went to intercede for him in heaven. This is why when we act, I think we ought to "do all things as unto the Lord", and unto Him alone, and leave the fruit for our neighbor to His work. I think when we imagine our own control as playing too large a part in our neighbor's good, we actually end up doing harm to them and ourselves because we fall into a kind of Pelagianism that does not simply and singularly surrender to God in trust that He is the only One who can do anything of true worth. This is a fundamental mistake at work in so much false compassion today. For instance, the modern world imagines the compassionate doctor will euthanize the patient in chronic pain, or abort the child in the woman's womb who may be a threat to her bodily health, etc. But the Christian says suffering, and even death, are not the ultimate things to avoid. Indeed, they can be things to be embraced should the Lord in His goodness and wisdom call us to them. What we ultimately want to avoid at all costs is lack of love for God. Love of neighbor does flow out from this and is intimately tied to it since Christ is in our neighbor, but love of God in and of itself is the beginning and the end of all things. I'm not putting this well, but what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that there is a similar flaw in the logic that says we ought to "put up with lying" to show compassion to our neighbor and the logic that says "we ought to put up with abortion" to show compassion to our neighbor. Forgive me if that seems to be putting it too strongly, but I think when we really flesh out the theology of speech--that Our Lord is the Logos, that He speaks reality into being, that He is Truth & Love at once, divinely simple, indicating truth and love cannot be separated in reality--I think it is possible to see that there is something worth pondering here. I'm no philosopher, but to me, to imagine the Incarnate Logos uttering a falsehood is to imagine words that have no sense, like square circles. And if Christ would not do it, then we should not either. I also think implying that if we do not lie for the sake of the ones hidden, then we are guilty of sacrificing them is a non-sequitur. It seems to place the blame in the wrong place. I'm also wondering what to make of the notion that it is our duty, in an absolute way that informs the example we're using, to spare others, and the reality that the Father does not spare the Son or Mary, but He gives them over to suffering for the sake of love and His holy will (though here I am really getting into mysterious wonders!). Another thing I want to point out is that the Lord says, incredibly and with such sweet mercy, that unless we "hate father and mother" we are not worthy of Him. He also consistently called his Apostles to abandon all for Him, and the saints constantly talk about the need for holy indifference and detachment. Why is this the case? I think in part because we tend to do moral calculus very badly when we are attached to our neighbor more than to God, and we tend to develop a gorilla grip that seeks to manipulate and control situations instead of surrendering to God and leaving it to Him, without Whom we can do nothing. I say all this not to undermine the seriousness of the Second Greatest commandment to love our neighbor **for the sake of Christ** (people always forget that part!), but to underscore that the only way to love others is to love God with a singular and all-consuming love. These are just some thoughts, poorly put and not totally fleshed out. But I've enjoyed the chance to explore this with you! God's peace.
@Ed I have not yet read your comment in its entirety, but I look forward to reading it and thinking about it soon. For now, I wanted to mention two quick things: (1) I think what I was trying to say about 'self-sacrifice' vs 'immolation' is simply that sacrifice of self to God in deepest love is a giving up of self for neighbor too, by its very nature. "Immolation," "surrender", etc.are terms that come to mind over "self-sacrifice" perhaps because the latter seems to lend itself to our ideas about the true good and our program of giving/altruism, where the former seem to lend themselves to God's mysterious actions rooted in love and abandonment. A friend told me the other day that a Protestant writer speaks of simply obeying the Lord and leaving the consequences (fruits) to Him. This idea grows more and more central in my own spiritual life as I seek to decrease so that He might increase. (2) The idea of mental reservation that I mentioned in my original comment--that making a reasonable assumption about the full question of the Nazi at the door and answering in accord...I keep thinking about that, and what I sense might be its overlap with the deep and tender mercy of using the true pronoun for the person confused about which belongs to him. I'll keep chewing on that and respond to your full comment after giving things some more thought. Thanks for being a companion down the rabbit hole.
@@sherryperpetua Your response captures my heart in this matter perfectly. I just watched this episode and it was difficult for me because I wanted to tell everyone all the things in your response (before I read your response). I am consoled to read it. I’m thankful that a true response was given. I rejoice at truth being proclaimed even in a comment box. The Father was amazing. I would love to have conversations with him. He said everything Fr Ripperger had explained on truth. I’m sad to say I would never trust Dt Smith to give me advice. I trust no one who operated on feelings and unformed conscience. She is not a theologian and sadly people have called her that. She may be very holy in ways but a theologian no. I’m very disturbed to think she would entertain apostasy.
As a major Father Pine fan, it almost pains me to say that I think the wise doctor convinced me in her closing argument. It does seem more ethical to decide what is lying based off of who deserves to know rather than the effects.
I just listened to this and it was great!!! The thought that kept coming to my mind was from a class on the Virtues by St. Thomas where I first heard of the virtue of Epikeia.
Hey Matt! Great podcast as usual. Just remember to include the topic of debate in intro lol... it took me some time to figure out what exactly was being argued for or against. Thanks for all the great content!
Interesting to say the least. Fr. Pine and Professoe Janet Smith both did an amazing presentation. I'm still on the fence on the topic which I have wondered about for a long time. I've seen sincere theology students abuse the notion that YOU don't deserve the truth and tell silly lies and I've see the reality of telling the truth to the destruction of other lives. I've seen that sometimes telling the truth will lead others into falsify due to the understandable distrust in the world, and due to the inability of others to (either or both) trust or discern an honest person. I would love to see more debate on the topic but diving deeper perhaps including the spiritual reality of reality. Blessings!
Is it possible that the principle of double effect applies here? Seems like in the hard cases that keep being brought up the intention is protection, not deception. Since the intention is right, and the consequences are not intended, but foreseen, does the principle of double effect apply? Thanks for doing this Matt, I’ve been chewing on this for a long time. Great debate.
Double effect cannot be used in cases where the object of the act is a moral absolute/ intrinsically disordered. So if we can agree about what lying is and if we can agree that it is always wrong, then double effect cannot apply.
That contraception talk changed MY life 800 years ago too! I was only a teenager but it is SO powerful! And yup, we had the cassette tape! Listened to it in my mom's old van. ;)
What I’m starting to see now (and I don’t know if it’s because of this debate) is that people are saying that Jesus **lied** in John 7:8-10… It seems to me like people are going as far as saying that Jesus lied (heresy) to justify lying.
Oh my Gosh!!! This is such an excellent debate and at amazingly right time. I was having discussions with Catholic friends and that was going nowhere. This debate is such a blessing. I can't say who won but my conscience is definitely well informed. Thanks @MattFradd God Bless
If lying is always wrong, why did (for example) St. Therese not attempt to make the truth be known about events that occurred wherein she was ultimately blamed when in fact the blame was rightly placed upon another person? I think there are times when it is okay for the truth to not be known at a given time. Yes, everyone has a right to the truth ultimately, there is also a timeline for such a thing. At the end of time, all truth will be revealed to all, and I believe, along with the points that Dr. Smith makes, that there are different times in which that truth should be made evident. If everyone is owed the right to truth at all times, then why does God not reveal Himself in all His Glory to us from the moment we exist? Because God knows when the best time to reveal Himself to each of us for each of us to have the best chance at spending all eternity with Him.... Would love to hear more of Dr. Smith and Fr. Pine's thoughts on this!
If everyone always has the right to the truth, then when the neighborhood women asked me how much weight I gained or what it was like to be pregnant with twins, should I have told each and every one of them that I adopted my husband’s twins and then open the conversation up to more questions, in which i owe them the truth, especially when my kids’ adoption circumstances are really their story to tell & not mine?
That was awesome. I have to side with Fr. Pine at the end, though Dr. Smith really forced me to think this through. Her position smells a little utilitarian.
It does seem utilitarian, although I think the response that Dr. Smith (who is not a utilitarian) would say that the apparent utilitarian weighing the good versus the evil conflicts actually don't exist because the lie being told is not an evil. I think that her argument cannot really escape consequentialism when applied, even if you could get out of the utilitarian appearance.
As someone who dealt with a father with dementia, I agree with Dr. Smith. I watched my father crumble when my mother told him that his mother was dead. (She's been dead since 1977). It would have been cruel to continually break his heart every time he asked about a dead family member.
Haven't watched this yet. My first two reactions from the title alone. Situation #1 "Ver are de Jews?!" Absolutely, lie without hesitation. Situation #2 *Gun to head* "Do you believe in Christ?" "Yes." *BANG* "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" -Mathew 10:33 I look forward to watching this when I get the time!
I was more convinced by Fr. Gregory Pine’s argument. Prof. Janet made a good argument but when fr. Pine said that we have to allow for God’s Providence. That our cooperation with sin or not is a testament or scandal for others.
Interesting debate BUT - Jesus never lied, as He never sinned. Not to mention that He is the Truth Himself. I do not presume to know how to qualify what happened there, but as with Jair's dead daughter of whom Jesus said she was asleep - He simply described reality from His Divine perspective. Not to mention that all He ever did was good and in love/with love etc. We do not know all the details of all Jesus's actions and His thoughts. And God's ways are not our ways. But I'd never say He lied. Or that lying in itself is good. However, the Cathehism of the Catholic Church already solved that debate... - namely points 2488 and 2499 (Respect for the Truth). With all due respect to prof. Smith and Father Pine - WHY wasn't this mentioned? Quite clearly, even though, the "deserve truth" part was cut out in a preceding point, it is emphasized in 2488 and 2499 and even the next one, that not everyone deserves all details of any given situation under all circumstances... So perhaps yes, everyone deserves the Truth - if you mean the Gospel, or the wrongness of your acts, etc. But we do not have the right to know for instance what sb said in the Confessional; or the oppresive state, doesn't have the right to know the whereabouts of people who are clearly unjustly persecuted like the Jews in your attic. Case closed. It's all there in the Catechism. It doesn't list all the cases that can happen in one's lifetime, but it does give clear guidelines - proceed with truth AND LOVE. www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/598/#zoom=z
Keep videos like this coming! Thank you señor Fradd. Dr. Janet Smith, I have never heard of you but I think I would love to hear from you and the experience you have had over your life time. I intellectually side with Father Pine but Dr. Janet Smith made an excellent point in her closing remarks and I would say no, Jews are not in my home. Two days later and still thinking about this video.
Best debate ever! Both sides were articulate and respectful but Janet Smith came out on top... she was right on the money, very logical and her replies lined up with the moral sense of the faithful in that the church has not condemn just wars which necessarily includes soldiers in war lying when engaged in spying and subtifuge. Nor has church frowned on police undercover actions --moreover to contextually and metaphysical justify humor deceptions but to state misleading nazis is venial sin is logically incoherent in my view.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices The eternal, objective and universal teaching of the one, true, Catholic and Apostolic church. The Divine positive law of the Triune God.
@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 there’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Madam.☝️ There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity. It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe, would you not agree, Mrs. Gaffney? 😩 P. S. When I typed “There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above”, I was obviously being sarcastic, since, objectively speaking, your answer was fully inebriated with nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts. :-p
This was great! Thanks for this. Side note, I think something might be off with the lighting or the dark color of the walls or something.... it looks like you have a floating head.
The pre-lapsarian argument sounds to me as if to say certain “rights and wrongs” simply didn’t exist or did not have the same moral value before the fall, but this sounds to me like saying truth can change simply because of original sin. How can it be that the truth of right and wrong can change simply because one has not yet sinned? If Adam and Eve commit a sin, that becomes the Original Sin, right? For example, suppose Eve had lied to the serpent to get out of answering its questions, then what?
You can have an object before you that will look very different from a different vantage point. Truth is Truth; creation is creation - but human nature fell and so did everything around it in a single moment. This is a real historical reality (and mysteriously the one that allows to say "O Happy Fault"). You speak to a sick or bad child differently than you speak to a well or well-behaved one; the aim (to form them/lead them/serve them well) is still the same. All our actions must tend toward and correspond to the Good. The communion of God with man looked completely different pre- and post-fall - makes sense that our spiritual battle in the Church militant as we seek the Good (and work out our salvation with fear and trembling) is going to look very different as well. It seems these questions deal with offenses against justice and calls to charity and solidarity - non-issues in Eden.
@@matthewmayuiers 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The only omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows Absolutely Everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity, which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more intelligent theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful being without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a face, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations, seems to demonstrate this assertion. Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional former pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), honestly believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna can manage to incorporate relative time into the Absolute sphere (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must necessarily transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from Absolute Truth. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is inherently PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source, no matter how unreliable. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart), German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” ************* “Each person’s apparently stable separate identity, each human’s sense of independent authorship of their actions, is part of the plan. It is how God plays, how God rolls, how God roles. God ‘dresses up’ as each person with their quirks, puts them in boring or interesting settings, and then experiences what happens. Far from being a screw up in need of fixing, it is how the universe experiences itself.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.
@Justin Trudeau, kindly refer to my previous comment (assuming that TH-cam have not yet deleted it, as they tend to do with comments from conservatives).
Of course, Father Pine is right that probably if the German Nazis were standing on our doorstep then our answer to the question "are there Jews in the basement" would no longer matter. But, for example, it would be a different matter if, for example, a baker in an occupied country was asked by the Gestapo whether he had noticed that a family had been buying more bread lately (which might indicate that he was hiding someone, such as Jews, or someone else whom the Gestapo was pursuing).
With the "Santa Clause" question, i taught my kids that what most people call Santa Clause is really a mixture of the Actual Historical St. Nicholas and what ALL the angels and saints fo for us all the time! So Santa Clause delivering gifts reminds us that the holy angels and the saints ALWAYS deliver gifts from The Holy Spirit to us all the time - we just think even more about it at Christmas! And isn't it cool how even a lot of people who don't believe in angels will start to think about how angels ACTUALLY and always do even more than what we imagine Santa Clause does! Kind of a C.S. Lewis in Narnia type Santa Clause who shows up and is a deep servant of Aslan and who does NOT fear The Witch like other people (he's not a "son of Adam" he IS Father Christmas)!
I think Dr Smith has very good arguments but they are based on the conviction that some people do not deserve to know the truth. The question is: who is to decide who doesn’t or does deserve the truth? Also the lack of trust in God’s providence is rather concerning. In the last example about the starving guy and the apples, who is to say that God can’t it won’t provide for the guy in other ways if he declined to take the apples because he was faithful to God’s command not to steal?
Concerning who gets to decide who deserves the truth, that is most likely left up to a prudential judgement by a well-formed conscience. Sort of similar to the church's teaching regarding voting.
at 15:35 fr mentiones jocose lies ( after quoting from the counsel of trent catechism previosly), he mentions joking with a falsehood is okay, yet that catechism mentions it is not okay at all as it is a practise of an evil and an accosion for greater sin.. i do agree with fr, and in my own belief ,think the catechism needs to be expanded to say at worse it is a venial sin if taken wrongly (in a nonejoking sense); but is better to avoid jocose lies.
TL;DR Bible is not on Pine's side. Pine's interpretation (citing the Augustinian/ Thomistic stance) of Ex1's midwives, is problematic. Just reading the text, one would never never conclude that what's going on is that God is giving a mitigated blessing; the Bible nowhere goes, "well, they did the wrong thing, but their hearts were in the right place. So, much bless." If there is, it isn't Ex1. It would also commit you to utilitarianism. "This immoral act is *divinely praiseworthy,* even though it's evil, cuz of intent and outcome." Well, shoot, really tough to defend the category of "intrinsically evil acts," Pine just talked about. Moreover, look at Judith. This scenario is even *LESS* like the Nazi-at-door thing than Ex1 (straight up espionage and deception) and the sacred author *clearly* celebrates her actions. Heck, the TLM for the Immaculate Conception, sees in the people's celebration of Judith a prefigurement of the *sinless* Theotokos! The Gradual quotes praise of Judith in just this vein: "Thou art the glory of Jerusalem and thou bringest honor to thy people!" The only reason you'd possible read those passages any differently is you are reading "bare false witness against thy neighbor," in a way no one in the Bronze or Iron ages would have read it: as categorical prohibition of deception, rather than witnessing falsely against another, i.e. in a civil/criminal context. Obviously, as with all the Decalogue, we try to find the root principle (see the Sermon on the Mount) but the rest of the Bible precludes that the underlying principle is what Pine thinks it is. So too does common sense. It is only philosophers (Kant, Aquinas, etc) who think it's okay to give up the Jews to torture and rape. Thank GOD the common man usually knows better.
I tend to agree with you, but I wonder then if the difference is found in the Nation of Israel as compared to the Church of Christ? Although, if I think about it, the Law of Christ is to love one another. So, what is done out of love (that is, Godly love) cannot be sinful, just as deeds are never righteous if they are done out of anything less. At the very least, "...love covers a multitude of sins."
Maybe I skipped something, but did Dr. Smith mention the distincton between restrictio pure mentalis and restrictio late mentalis? If so, can someone say in wich minute? Also I would like to hear what moral theology has to say about “clickbaiting”, I think nowadays is so important to talk about it. When yes and when no. GB🙏
Great programme, outstanding quality ! I was wondering what about omission ? To stick to the externe WWII example , Jews usually had to make themselves known to the authorities and register at the local town hall. Would omitting to do so be considered a form of lie by omission ? This is obviously an extreme case but you see the logic. Thanks for any views on this .
Anything that God would not do, we should not do. Since anything that goes against His character is objectively not good, and He cannot even perform acts that are not good. We need to make God our standard
Importantly, the current catechism (para. 2488-89) actually contains the following sentence: "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." It also authorises the use of "discreet language"," which seems similar to mental reservation. But lying itself doesn't seem allowed. Interesting stuff !
I find it a little disturbing that no one looks to the single person one ought to look for an answer to this question: to Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Wait. I take that back. I do think SOMEONE looks to Jesus, and that would be St. Thomas (et St. Augustine et alius Sanctis). St. Thomas' view on this, as with everything, is not born of abstract thought, but of prayer, contemplation, and the data of faith and revelation. St. Thomas, without explicitly saying so, has asked Jesus what he would do, and he looks for examples in Scripture and/or to internal enlightenment for the solution which he then expresses in precise philosophical language. To cut to the chase, the point is that there is no example in Scripture of Jesus telling a lie, and I'm willing to bet that the very idea of such a thing, done for ANY reason, fills the present reader with horror. But if that's the case, how can anyone sit here and argue that lying is morally permissible, being contrary to the example of the Lord himself? Jesus refused to lie even to save the life of the Creator of the universe, as well as denouncing lies by gently revealing to Peter the bitter fruit of Peter's own thrice-told fib about knowing him (even though it was told to prevent harm coming to Peter). Examples like these are the historical ground of St. Thomas' position. All the same, Jesus did leave us an example of another acceptable behavior in the face of unpleasant choices, and that is silence. While Jesus' silence (before Herod, for instance) wasn't because he was tempted to lie, nevertheless he demonstrated that no moral law is broken in simply refusing to answer a question. True, by refusing to answer one may provoke the questioner into assuming one's answer, but any guilt deriving from subsequent events rests with the questioner--clearly making the rule that one's ultimate loyalty must be always to God first and trust in his Providence. We cannot tell a lie even if we think we're doing good, although we can remain silent, or if we are clever like Athanasius*, tell a truth that may possibly be misunderstood. That's my take on it anyway. (*) Jesus left us an example of this in his own case when he told his brethren that he was not going up to the Passover feast, only to follow behind them later to Jerusalem, where he, true to his word, did not join in the feast.
Here's a couple points I didn't see answered, and maybe Matt could ask Fr. Pine on another episode: Premise: Killing in self-defense is ok because in the time that one is acting as an aggressor, he has forfeited his right to life. That right is restored when they are no longer an immediate threat (otherwise vigilantism would be ok). We can momentarily renounce rights due to us by our actions. Thought/question: The Nazi has a right to the truth generally. But, in the instance that they are going to weaponize truth to do harm, they forfeit their right to that information. Therefore, you no longer owe them the truth about the Jews you're hiding, just as you don't owe the attacker the ability to continue their attack. If a mental reservation is possible, lying would be "excessive force," but if it is the only option, I would argue it is comparable to the self-defense scenario. By Fr. Pine's logic, it would seem that even camouflage or painting an airport to look like it had been bombed would be evils. Another thought: Taking apples is not intrinsically evil. So, the father providing for his starving family can take apples, but I could not as someone who is well-provided for. It is not the action that is evil, it's the circumstances that decide if it is appropriating excess for the common good or if it's simply stealing.
1) God cannot lie [Titus 1:2] 2) There are no non-moral limitations on God's power [Definition of omnipotence] 3) If lying were ever permissible, and God cannot lie, then there are non-moral limitations on God's power [premise] 4) Therefore, lying is never permissible. Thoughts?
@@fabiolagarzacreates Doesn't work with God because God has an absolute right to life and we don't. Man killing in self defense is different than God killing.
In the biblical story of King Solomon and the two mothers, did King Solomon lie to be able to know who the real mother was? If so, does that justify lying as a means to a good end?
1:48 Good basis for her arguments: The Nazis definition of Jews was not in accord with the true and proper definition of what a Jew is, and therefore they would properly lose the right to the truth in this context, since Jews are human beings and Nazis did not recognize them as such. As well, the beatific vision is the vision of the truth without the veil of faith; however, not everyone will have the right to it, but only those Who love God until the end! also based on the idea of “interior logic” (1:37:53) from the Dominican priest with this interior logic a person would not be telling a lie but protecting what belongs to God.
I’m leaning towards Dr. Smith. I’m one of those that believe that sometimes, the intention is more important than the action. God may not necessarily judge all the actions you carry out in your life to determine whether or not you technically sinned. It’s based on the content of our hearts I believe.
Amazing debate, Can i agree to both of them? I just trust that the Holy Spirit will guide me when I end up lying and causing injury to my own soul or another soul.
the "hot blonde" joke was not a lie because it is a painting in her imagination. And imaginations are not lies. Just like fables are not lies but are also not necessarily true.
I would add, Fr. P. (in my opinion),is absolutely correct in his assessment. God is not a truth, God is Truth. Anytime we do not tell the truth we fall short of the mark, and any short fall is a defect of our true nature and not as God wills. Similarly, by believing we are the arbiters of what will or will not be good,, we discount God's perfect knowledge, will, and reject his providence which we are always called to trust and believe. Even if the short term outcome seems contrary to our reasoning. Second, prelapsararian Adam and Eve, contrary to Dr. Smiths very good overall assessments, would not have had sex toward the end of having children. Rather, their end would have been, (given the boundaries of the argument), love!!..children are the fruit of love, love is the object, intention, and end all by itself, because God is to whom all actions (only actions with God as the end are actually true actions) are directed. Children are the superabundent fruit of love, created life, and only God, who is love, who is life, can create, and all that is created is good, because God's essence is goodness itself. God's love, which is reality, was not even used, if I am correct, in this case.
The main thing this is making me wonder is if not answering the question at all is a lie or not. Since answering they are here results in death but answering no is a lie. So answering "i went to the nazi rally so what do you think" would not be responding.
What an amazing debate, huh?
Awesome debate!! Love Fr. Pine and Dr. Smith did well!
@@YouthApologetics, not only did she do "well" but she assuredly defeated his nonsensical, illogical and fallacious arguments.
Hello, I am a fellow Protestant for what I know so far, I’ve been considering Catholicism for a little while, but also leaning heavily to Orthodox as well, but I haven’t become a catholic for a few reasons, I would like some guidance on them, firstly, I can’t seem to reconcile praying to angels, is there hidden information that I don’t know about that we SHOULD pray to angels? I also can’t reconcile praying to mortal dead men, if praying to angels were to make sense in SOME way, humans are way different because we are subject to sin, the angels aren’t (at least the holy angels) I’m also confused on how salvation works according to Catholicism can you guide me on that as well?
Thank you
God bless
@@PringleDinglesonThe3rd, how can you be "eternally-bound" to Lord Jesus, when He died THOUSANDS of years ago?
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Just means that nothing will separate me from Christ
maybe the three thumbs down were from people who thought it was OK to lie about how they felt about the video :)
Or those who saw one deluded religionist debating ANOTHER deluded religionist, both of whom had a far from perfect understanding of objective morality.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices #IWasTryingToLookOnThePositiveSide.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Get outta here, that’s irrelevant to the debate, if you got problems with the classical view of Gods existence take that to a video on Gods existence, not a video on Ethics. You’re just raging out, irrelevantly replying to every comment with an objection to theism. Find a way to spend your time and energy that makes sense, you’re making objections in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
@@JC-pl5bh
Good Girl! 👌
@Kevin Cobb
“Truthful words are not beautiful.
Beautiful words are not truthful.
Wise men do not argue.
Those who argue are not wise.”
Tao Te Ching 81
I was needing this conversation since my childhood. This question about lies is a fundamental one to me.
Absolutely Brilliant debate! Great content Matt ....I actually started out on Dr Smith's position, but over the debate I found myself drifiting over to Fr Gregory's side especially his response at 45:00, Really eloquent and it very much resonated with me.
Fr. Gregory is brilliant
A brilliant example of a DELUDED religionist. 🤪
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices And you are a brilliant example of someone wasting their time. If you are right and we are deluded why do you care? Leave us alone in our delusion.
@Ojibwe T kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
@@logansweet4190 That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices
What am I presuming exactly? That you are wasting your time? That is just based on your point of view. From your perspective we are deluded, but overall harmless to you, so there is no point in being here other than being annoying. Which does have some humor value I guess, but I am sure you can find better ways to entertain yourself. Go watch a Dave Chappelle special. You will find it funnier than trolling here trust me.
Fr Pine: Classical Speech vs. Quantum Speech and its effect on humor.
Well played.
After listening to Fr Pine's opening position, I almost thought the matter was settled... that there would be no way Dr Smith could effectively counter it. Now, after hearing her well thought out reasoning which is intellectually satisfying, I am grateful for her courage in addressing this issue. She makes perfect sense and has convinced me that her position is correct.
I was exactly on the opposite camp and I started to think Fr Pine’s position is the one correct here even though I wasn’t sympathetic to it at the first glance. Let me explain.
I started more inclined to defend Dr Janet Smith’s position due to the fact that extreme evil simply exists and maybe some situations would demand us to adopt her approach, contrary to what appeared to be a moral rigorism. Her approach seemed also more naturally adaptable to St Alphonsus Maria Liguori’s moral theology, for example, a Doctor of the Church who is (in my humble opinion) the greatest moral theologian in history. As a lawyer as St Alphosus himself, I am always magnetically driven to his gigantic “Moral Theology” volumes (but I couldn’t find lying to save lives of the others in his pages though).
But after the debate, I respected the Thomistic view on “lies are always wrong” much more than I thought I rationally would in the first place. What was decisive for me is that Fr Pine is emphatic in defending there is not one single human act in lying so as to protect the Jews from the Nazis but two acts, one appearing to be instrumental to the other: the saving of Jews from Nazis being the virtuous and charitable one; the lie as a means to saving people being the sinful instrument for it albeit the nature of sin couldn’t be but light and venial, since we can’t find grave malice in it. On the other hand, Dr Janet Smith seemed to presuppose our intellectual operations would come in one single simple act and therefore it could not be sinful to lie to save someone’s life. To what I question: are our operations of the intellect identical to God’s?
What I started to notice is that performing things that are bad so as to achieve results that are good can be a very, very tricky position and maybe drive us to some kind of a cryptic moral relativism. Of course one would say that the thing is not actually bad (lying) since it is ordered to do good (saving the Jews from the Nazis) so the point is justly to say it is not bad or wrong in the first place.
But isn’t it the EXACT argument Machiavelli used in his political theory and his controversial ethics? Isn’t he precisely saying the morality of the means can be justified by the virtue of the ends so that the ends will always justify the means? Wasn’t in fact Dr Janet Smith too dependent on this example of saving the Jews or other extreme ones to make her case?
Maybe their disagreement was exactly into this, I mean, that one (Dr Janet Smith) sees one simple act and the other sees two distinguishable mental acts (Fr Pine), “act 1” in ordering the conscience - teleologically - to the savings of the Jews and “act 2” in ordering the conscience - instrumentally - to lie so as to achieve it. As an example, look at what Fr Pine says here: 1:15:25.
I think I ended up much more attracted to Fr Gregory Pine’s argument to be sincere.
@@masterchief8179 Double effect. A lie is intrinsically evil/wrong--analogously, murder is intrinsically evil, stealing is intrinsically evil, etc. We can never, as Machiavelli suggests, do an intrinsic evil for a good reason. Dr. Smith is making a distinction that includes a "specifying feature" to the act of telling a falsehood to a person who doesn't deserve to know the truth (pertaining to the good being sought) and a falsehood. Her definition (which is in the Catechism originally and I have been teaching without knowing this portion was deleted!) is the only definition that answers all these questions (undercover cops, spies, espionage, military secrets, Santa Claus, etc.). It is a matter of justice.
@@cml2176 Still I dare to say it gets us somewhat very close to the kind of moral relativism that is implied in Machiavelli’s ethic and political theory’s position on moral philosophy: if the ends are legitimate, then the means are not to be morally condemned. That’s what I was afraid to conclude even though it is far more nuanced. Since saving the Jews is a good - and she adhere to the “implicitly clause” that says that this good is much greater than the magnitude of the bad in not conveying the truth “per se” -, then it is not that lying to save Jews from the Nazi’s Gestapo becomes a lesser evil but it becomes no evil at all. And the kind of definition of telling a falsehood (rather than lying) using the “specifying feature” of admitting it is not a lie if the person who gets the speech is not entitled to know the truth will eventually rely on a “hidden premise”: the assumption that a moral intuition, prior to the moral reasoning process, could make us achieve this kind of discernment.
So the rationality by which we believe the (arguably bad) means to an (obvious good) end is justified relies too much on that kind of moral intuition Dr Janet talked about. Then I fear by strict coherence that Dr Janet can ultimate this reasoning by defending that the wrong evaluations on the core relations between means and ends ought NOT to be seen as a theme of intrinsic moral wrongness but as a matter of a bad moral intuition in understanding and deciphering the precise equation (of relations on means and ends). She explicitly said moral intuitions can be right or wrong in her final five minutes statement. To what I question if there is a real moral objectivity if we stretch things too much, or if it is aleatory to some considerable degree and we must then concede we will eventually stand on relying too much on our moral intuitions guiding those equations (of means and ends).
So what I say here is that the Soviet Communists thought that practicing genocide from starvation in the Ukranian Holodomor was a means to achieve a greater good, namely the propulsion and the survival of the revolutionary processes and the propagation of the communist cause. So to the greater extent we should say it is not that practicing genocide is intrinsically evil (immoral, therefore sinful) but it was rather a problem of bad calibration on the moral intuitions on the part of Communist Party leaders and Soviet bureaucrats.
I know one could say this Holodomor example is extreme in judging the morality of murder, but the same argument should be made in judging the morality of lying in the case of lying to save the life of the Jews from the Nazis. It was extreme too. Even acknowledging she specifically said murdering “innocent people” is always wrong, therefore giving adhesion to a premise she didn’t assume for lying, I fear two things here would necessarily follow (one, other or both): 1) one, that those assumptions in evaluating the moral differences in lying and murdering were maybe “a priori” and/or apodictic, an ‘accusation’ she happens to address to Fr Pine; 2) that by the same kind of reasoning she would adhere to some definition of “innocent” people, assuming the Soviets simply could say the Ukranian massacred people weren’t innocent, to what I sense we would admit there is space for arbitrarily define things if they fail to have an intrinsic moral consistency. I don’t have ANY doubt that a communist who says those massacres were legitimate due to the circumstances, despite being bad, to what he or she says the ends justified the means (and I have a friend just like that) simply will think it is much more fitting to say actually it was not intrinsically bad at all by virtue of the contextualizations and of “moral intuitions” that happens to be good or bad from time to time. I know murder is different but I couldn’t help but notice her argument somehow relied upon some sort of arbitrary “a priori” assumptions, I guess.
But the problem for me is that it is exactly the encyclopedic definition for “moral relativism”. I am not saying that I agree entirely with Fr Pine’s position on lying, but Catholics should avoid moral relativism as the devil avoids the cross - and that made me reject the kind of argumentation Dr Janet used. And that’s what called my attention so deeply in the first place. I studied moral philosophy much more than I studied moral theology - and that thing didn’t cease to surprise me here when I finally thought it through.
This is probably my favorite debate I've seen on Pints so far! At the end, I found myself more convinced by Dr. Smiths arguments, but it was close. Fr Pine was brilliant as always!
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices lol yikes, seems like you're the one who needs therapy here bud
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices - mate, you may want to reflect on why it is you feel it so necessary to abuse Fr Pine online.
@@peace-and-quiet kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Pine is a consummate show-off, period,;and that’s my takeaway. Hell is filled with brilliant Dominican logicians.
Frederick of Florence
@@frederickbecklo3227 ad hominem fallacy. How about you say something substantial?
This is incredibly thought provoking. I would lean towards lying being always wrong, BUT I certainly don’t think I could necessarily defend my stance at this point because Dr Smith made some great points I’ve never considered. Thank you for hosting this, it’s awesome!
This was excellent. They only spoke over my head a few times, so I learned a lot. Glad I don't have to declare a winner, because both provided great arguments. One thing I did wish they would have addressed more is the lie of omission.
Every thing Fr. Pine touches turns to gold
Thank you both for this great discussion. I know that I need to hear this again as there were many nuances. Being a Dominican Sister and knowing our Charism is Veritas. I continue to learn and need to integrate what I have heard. I do try to speak the Truth in love and yet I know like St. Paul, I have weaknesses and yet I rely like Paul on the Mercy of God.
Blessings and peace in all your ministries to bring us to the Truth and give glory to God by not telling lies that I know is a lie. I have learned “Seldom affirm, Never deny and Always distinguish.” Gratefully, Sr. Brigid
Best debate I have ever heard. Period.
Simply beautiful. Poetry in motion to watch two brilliant theologians have a rigorous debate. I had been looking forward to this since Matt announced it would happen, and it certainly did not disappoint. I don’t know on whose side I fall, lots to continue to consider.
Thanks, PWA!
absolutely AMAZING, these two are incredibly brilliant and have a deeeep knowledge.
I also emphatically fist pumped when Fr. Pine reminded us (somewhat too subtly, I would say) that God and His Providence are still out there, and it feels like most of this debate forgets this fact. If we admit Fr. Pine’s argument about the absoluteness of truth and genuinely want to please God by never lying, do we have enough faith in Him to speak the truth (or Truth) if Nazis come around?
That argument is only worth treating if we grant that he's right about it being God's will that we never lie. It is therefore not valuable to me, as someone who is not already convinced by him. This is why, to his credit, he only mentioned it in passing.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity.🤓
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
P. S. When I typed “There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above”, I was obviously being sarcastic, since, objectively speaking, your inane drivel was fully inebriated with a plethora of nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts. 🙄
Lying inherently fractures relationships (not good). Also, lying sets us up to lie in the future, so that our first lie is validated or least not contradicted. Both of these points opens the door for the enemy to have a field day.
@@gerihall8265
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Clay's response is adequate. "Begging the question."
I'm really torn, but I'm leaning towards lying always being wrong.
One thing I'd ask is whether or not bodily death of a human being is contrary to eternal law. I think the only way you can say that lying is always wrong, but killing is not always wrong is by saying that the expression of falsehood contrary to eternal law, but the bodily death of a human being is not contrary to eternal law. I think that makes sense though.
Good point. I think the only way Dr Smith's position is defensible is if you define lying in the way the 1992 Catechism does. Not saying that definition needs to be accepted but I couldn't think of any reason to reject it either (especially considering that the side I'm leaning towards requires that killing is not always wrong but lying is). But you have provided a reason to reject the 1992 definition.
@@don7502 We need to consider that Aquinas was making philosophical observations (enlightened by Divine Revelation and Tradition) in the manner of theogians...he isn't spot on everything...so there is nothing delitorious about the definition of lie in the 1992 CCC.
@@cml2176 The definition was revised so that says something.
Just have to say this is an incredible debate and discussion, one of my favorite episodes. Thank you to Dr. Smith and Fr. Pine for the excellent points made and Matt Fradd for bringing us such a great debate!
Thank you, this was amazing. More Dr. Smith!
Around 1:16:00 is where I hear the argument that convinced me that lying is always a sin... I began to consider that our already complex morality is being made more complicated when we lie, even for good reasons, when telling the truth might allow us to cooperate with God’s plan in the process of healing the broken-ness that entered the world at the fall.
I also disagree with Dr. Smith that a joke is the same thing as a jocose lie. I disagree that the intent of a joke is to deceive. The intent of a joke is to surprise or shock, and often a person is led through deception, but ultimately a joke-teller doesn't want their conversation partner walking away from the conversation believing whatever falsehood they used to make the joke. I mean, when we make a joke and it's misunderstood, our immediate reaction is to clear up the misunderstanding. When we lie, unless we repent, we generally want the person who we've lied to to believe the lie indefinitely.
Fantastic comment, very well-articulated.
She misspoke.
That is very inconsistent. This is utilitarianism with jokes but not with saving lives. Your argument is that *ultimately* with a joke, though you intentionally deceive temporarily, it's okay cuz it's temporary and you wanna do something good (amuse).
Couldn't I just as easily apply *everything* you just said to one of Smith's examples: the soldier who wants the Enemy to believe they'll be attacked at a different time in different manner? *Ultimately* he wants something good (beating Nazis) and it's only a temporary deception.
See, Smirh says deceiving people who've a right to the truth is always wrong. No exceptions. Pine says any and all deceptions are wrong.....except for jokes.
He------ he ~~~~ is the one making situational exceptions to the moral law; you just don't notice cuz his exceptions are absurd
Clay's answer is adequate.
Honestly, I reasoned through this with an example of a joke and I think you're probably right.
I was going to argue that because deception is the act of causing someone to accept something as true that is false, or valid that is invalid, a joke does not deceive. My argument was going to be that a joke sometimes entails one to speak falsehood, but the intent of the jester is not to deceive, but instead cause the person to recognize the falsehood and surprise them.
Then I took an example:
Bob: "I invented a new word."
Amy: "Oh yeah, what is it?"
Bob: "Plagiarism."
I think it's fair to say that Bob was in fact lying because he spoke the first sentence with the intention to deceive Amy, even if only temporarily.
Yeah, okay, I agree with you.
Hmm, now I have to think harder on this, because you're right that in order to argue that lying is always wrong, you would need to argue that Bob sinned when he told that joke, but that seems intuitively wrong.
This whole debate really boils down then to 2 questions I think:
1. Is lying inherently evil? If not, then lying is not always wrong. If yes, then...
2. Is it possible to intentionally perform an inherently evil act and not be sinning? If no, then lying is always wrong. If yes, then lying is not always wrong.
The Church definitively says no to the second question in CCC 1755, so the only way for lying to be sometimes okay is for lying to not be inherently evil.
By Dr. Smith’s definition of lying, it would seem that she thinks that lying is always wrong (if lying is telling a falsehood to someone who has a right to the truth).
Such an interesting debate that I've been looking forward to for days!
Teach it like Father Pine, do it like Dr. Smith. That’s my takeaway.
Never lie to dementia patients. Your answer should redirect them to something positive, that they loved, while still staying on topic. Ex: “When is Harry coming home?”(the husband who is deceased). Caregiver: “You loved it when he came home, didn’t you? What was his favorite dinner you’d cook for him?” Through your redirecting questions explore all kinds of loved filled memories.
I wish we had heard that from the caregiver support people when my dad was alive. They are constantly insisting that you have to lie.
Geri Hall i agree with you
Withholding truth and misdirection are still lying.
@@gooseabuser5963 I’m going on the assumption that she already was repeatedly told her husband has died.
@@gooseabuser5963 No, that is not lying.
Regarding Santa Clause...I definitely believed whole-heartedly for too long. In Grade 7 I stood in front of my class and passionately defended my position against the rest of my class, explaining that I had personally seen him flying with his reindeer (I can still vividly remember seeing it?!). The fact that nobody else believed, however, seemed to sway my absolute belief at least enough to cause me to come up with a plan.
One of the presents I received from Santa was a pair of shorts. Some time after Christmas I wore the shorts and casually asked my mom where she bought them. AND she TOLD ME! I gasped. She gasped. My world crumbled but we laughed and laughed. I still have fond memories of Santa regardless of my embarrassment but I typically embrace embarrassment easily so long as it's humourous.
As a parent, I think I've struck a decent balance. I think I tend toward Father Pine and Matt's perspective so I try very hard never to lie. I typically turn the question back to my children and ask what they believe and would never tell them flat out, "yes Santa, as the world sees him now, is completely real."
That being said, I love what C.S. Lewis had to say on the topic very very much...well sort of on the topic...when responding to a little girl about her concern over loving Aslan more than Jesus.
In any case, 2 of my kids have figured it out, but they play along well under threat of "if you don't believe in Santa you don't get a gift from Santa *wink wink* *nudge nudge*" - haha!
This was fantastic. After listening, I'd love to hear more thoughts on whether it's ok to decide I prefer the definition of lying in the '92 version of the CCC. To develop that, what should a faithful Catholic's stance be in regards to the CCC? I was initially taught to love it (and I do). Then I starting hearing fellow traditionally-minded people speak ill of it. Finally, I've heard that some misguided individuals (I'm sure that's putting it too charitably) would like to see words like "disordered" redacted from some pretty important places. Add the option of preferring a previously unabridged definition of lying and, well, I wonder what sort of ground I'm building on here. The winds blew and the floods came!
Also, I'd just like to say that seeing Fr. Pine piece together, e.g., a moral framework of humor on the spot is truly as enjoyable as watching a fantastically trained athlete. I'm in awe of the speed and precision with which he builds up a cohesive stance from well-ingrained research and fundamental principles.
I put all this work into a comment only to just notice it's all 2 years old! Oh well, if you read this God bless :)
This is the best discussion I have ever witnessed.
Blessed Migel Pro masqueraded as a street sweeper. Was that a moral wrong? Why would it only be morally wrong when verbalized, but not just acted out??
Msgr. Hugh O'Flarehty masqueraded to smuggled allies and Jews out of Nazi occupied Italy...and told many falsehoods in word and pen to Nazi officials. His determination eventually won over the commanding Nazi who ended up converting. I understand that lying is intrinsically evil, but telling a falsehood to one who doesn't deserve to know the truth is heroic. Telling a Nazi that there are Jews in my home doesn't convert the Nazi--it proves I am a coward.
Yep that’s the example I thought of too.
So, if you were asked if you knew where the priest was hiding and you responded non- verbally with a puzzled look and shrug of the shoulders, would that not also be a deception of communication???
When I leave the lights on before leaving home, am I also being deceptive to would-be criminals who would otherwise ransack my home? In this case am I sinning?
Not an expert here, but correct me if i am wrong. it seems to me that this may not be a sin because this may count as ‘mental reservation’. There are several possibilities that a person leaves his lights on: 1) because he is at home, 2) he is not at home, but he forgot to switch off his lights, 3) he is just going away for a short while so he think it is troublesome to turn them off, 4) no reason at all, 5) because the house looks prettier, etc... In this case, the pedestrians do not need to know the reason for which you switch on your light. The criminal thinks there is a possibility that there might be people in the house, but that is just one of the possibilities, and it is very likely that the criminal knows that a house with lights may have people in it, but not necessarily. Also, there is sufficient reason to withhold the reason behind leaving the lights on to the criminal, who doesn’t need to know the reason behind your every actions. Perhaps looking up which type of mental reservation is permitted would be of help. Have a nice day!
no deception is not a sin. lying is a sin. speech has its teological end for truth. To say something contrary to truth is a lie. An abuse of speech. but keep your lights on to decieve is not sinful in the least its wise. you haven't done anything contrary to the natural law.
I think that's kind of a good point and my take on this debate. An enemy has declared war on us. Subterfuge and deceit are part of warfare.
Wow, wow, wow. Incredible debate between two people who obviously want the truth and deeply respect one another.
I continue to reflect on this, and as I do, I become so aware of the pernicious and naive mistakes at work in the position that believes some falsehoods are moral. I also keep thinking that Father Pine mounted an argument, whereas Dr. Smith seemed to appeal more to emotion throughout and bounce around. I want to say not seeing the strength, beauty, and power of Father Pine's position is at bottom a failure to really grasp the nature of the fight we're in as fallen souls and as Christians.
Other thoughts: the way to bridge the gap between the first version of the Catechism's teaching on lying and the current one, it seems to me, is that everyone, by virtue of being an image of God, has a right to the truth. This means there is no substantive difference between the first and second versions. That said, while I tend strongly toward Father Pine's position, the idea of mental reservation seems to warrant more thought. I think if one can reasonably assume the question from the Nazis at the door to actually be, "Are you hiding anyone [we want to kill]?", then saying "No" to that is the truth.
@Ed I appreciate this response. I had seen your comment about this earlier in the thread. For my own part, I don't find Father Pine's position (which is also supported by saints and agrees with the Catechism) attractive so much because it is absolute and allows me to know what I as a subjective person ought to do in a hard situation. I find it attractive because it is such a sacrifice of pure love and pure faithfulness to the God Who is Truth Itself, made out of true and tender faith in God's power to bring good out of suffering.
If one were in this position and refused to lie for love of God--Who, by the way, we are to love above neighbor, and for the sake of Whom we love our neighbor in the first place--the consolation would not be, "Well at least I am in a state of grace!" It would be, "Lord, you are my portion forever, I trust in You." I thought Father Pine's points about apostasy and the saints who refused to do so capture this same radical love and faith so well. My own patron, St. Perpetua, refused to deny Christ even though she had just given birth to a little boy and her father pleaded with her to do so so she could live. That Dr. Smith said she could be "persuaded" that even denying the faith as a lie could be permissible betrays much about the blindspot in this vision of what it means to love God and neighbor alike, for indeed, we never do more for our neighbor than when we sacrifice for love of God. (The movie A Hidden Life speaks to these themes very powerfully and beautifully. Every soul should watch it.) I loved when Father Pine brought up St. John Henry Newman's point that we should prefer the destruction of the entire material universe to the commission of a single sin. If only we knew how sweet and worthy Our Lord is of our all!
As far as the idea that we should not celebrate the lying, but we simply tolerate it in some cases--this is not Dr. Smith's argument because this admits lying is a sin. She would say in some cases falsehoods are not the sin of lying, but are themselves morally laudable. How to square that with God's essence as Truth and Love Itself is impossible. But either position falls short of being Perfect Love even as our Father is.
One more point: I have heard accounts of times Christians refused to lie in dangerous situations, and the Lord blessed their faith immediately. One account was of a man escaping from Vietnam. He was sneaking into a boat at night when guards came up and asked what he was doing out. He made up an excuse and lied, and when they walked away, he immediately confessed it to God and said he would never do that again. He ran into the guards later, and again they pressed him about what he was up to, and he told them the truth. Their response? They wanted to go with him! According to the source of the story, the man lives in CA now.
@Ed Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that we are not truly ourselves, especially our redeemed selves, until we are free to love as Christ does on the Cross, and this fact is rooted in the very nature of our creation, and our new creation by baptism. At the same time, for some reason, the term "self-sacrifice" seems not the right term to employ in the present discussion--as in using "self-sacrifice" to equal "good", where we mean I end up dying, and all other forms of 'sacrifice' (as in someone else ends up suffering in some way following a choice we've made) as bad and not in themselves a form of self-giving/surrender/sacrifice. I'm feathering this out as I write, so forgive me if this lacks the clarity Fr. Pine is so readily able to bring!
To me, refusing to lie in our hypothetical case is an immolation of self in the Divine Will for the sake of love, obedience, humility, faith, and hope. Why hope? Because we believe in the positive feedback loop (rooted in the Trinity and trinitarian architecture of reality) that giving ourselves and our souls over entirely to Christ will indeed be the best thing we can possibly do even for our neighbor, especially for our neighbor's soul. St. Perpetua is an amazing example of this. Her father did not beg her to deny Christ and live for her own sake--he begged her to deny Christ and live for the sake of her little boy. She refused, was killed, and her little boy was left here without her. And yet, in abandoning all to God in holy martyrdom, she actually did more for her son than she could have ever done by any other earthly act. She showed him the true way, the way to true life, in Christ, and she went to intercede for him in heaven.
This is why when we act, I think we ought to "do all things as unto the Lord", and unto Him alone, and leave the fruit for our neighbor to His work. I think when we imagine our own control as playing too large a part in our neighbor's good, we actually end up doing harm to them and ourselves because we fall into a kind of Pelagianism that does not simply and singularly surrender to God in trust that He is the only One who can do anything of true worth. This is a fundamental mistake at work in so much false compassion today.
For instance, the modern world imagines the compassionate doctor will euthanize the patient in chronic pain, or abort the child in the woman's womb who may be a threat to her bodily health, etc. But the Christian says suffering, and even death, are not the ultimate things to avoid. Indeed, they can be things to be embraced should the Lord in His goodness and wisdom call us to them. What we ultimately want to avoid at all costs is lack of love for God. Love of neighbor does flow out from this and is intimately tied to it since Christ is in our neighbor, but love of God in and of itself is the beginning and the end of all things.
I'm not putting this well, but what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that there is a similar flaw in the logic that says we ought to "put up with lying" to show compassion to our neighbor and the logic that says "we ought to put up with abortion" to show compassion to our neighbor. Forgive me if that seems to be putting it too strongly, but I think when we really flesh out the theology of speech--that Our Lord is the Logos, that He speaks reality into being, that He is Truth & Love at once, divinely simple, indicating truth and love cannot be separated in reality--I think it is possible to see that there is something worth pondering here. I'm no philosopher, but to me, to imagine the Incarnate Logos uttering a falsehood is to imagine words that have no sense, like square circles. And if Christ would not do it, then we should not either.
I also think implying that if we do not lie for the sake of the ones hidden, then we are guilty of sacrificing them is a non-sequitur. It seems to place the blame in the wrong place. I'm also wondering what to make of the notion that it is our duty, in an absolute way that informs the example we're using, to spare others, and the reality that the Father does not spare the Son or Mary, but He gives them over to suffering for the sake of love and His holy will (though here I am really getting into mysterious wonders!).
Another thing I want to point out is that the Lord says, incredibly and with such sweet mercy, that unless we "hate father and mother" we are not worthy of Him. He also consistently called his Apostles to abandon all for Him, and the saints constantly talk about the need for holy indifference and detachment. Why is this the case? I think in part because we tend to do moral calculus very badly when we are attached to our neighbor more than to God, and we tend to develop a gorilla grip that seeks to manipulate and control situations instead of surrendering to God and leaving it to Him, without Whom we can do nothing. I say all this not to undermine the seriousness of the Second Greatest commandment to love our neighbor **for the sake of Christ** (people always forget that part!), but to underscore that the only way to love others is to love God with a singular and all-consuming love.
These are just some thoughts, poorly put and not totally fleshed out. But I've enjoyed the chance to explore this with you! God's peace.
@Ed I have not yet read your comment in its entirety, but I look forward to reading it and thinking about it soon. For now, I wanted to mention two quick things: (1) I think what I was trying to say about 'self-sacrifice' vs 'immolation' is simply that sacrifice of self to God in deepest love is a giving up of self for neighbor too, by its very nature. "Immolation," "surrender", etc.are terms that come to mind over "self-sacrifice" perhaps because the latter seems to lend itself to our ideas about the true good and our program of giving/altruism, where the former seem to lend themselves to God's mysterious actions rooted in love and abandonment. A friend told me the other day that a Protestant writer speaks of simply obeying the Lord and leaving the consequences (fruits) to Him. This idea grows more and more central in my own spiritual life as I seek to decrease so that He might increase. (2) The idea of mental reservation that I mentioned in my original comment--that making a reasonable assumption about the full question of the Nazi at the door and answering in accord...I keep thinking about that, and what I sense might be its overlap with the deep and tender mercy of using the true pronoun for the person confused about which belongs to him. I'll keep chewing on that and respond to your full comment after giving things some more thought. Thanks for being a companion down the rabbit hole.
@@sherryperpetua Your response captures my heart in this matter perfectly. I just watched this episode and it was difficult for me because I wanted to tell everyone all the things in your response (before I read your response). I am consoled to read it. I’m thankful that a true response was given. I rejoice at truth being proclaimed even in a comment box. The Father was amazing. I would love to have conversations with him. He said everything Fr Ripperger had explained on truth. I’m sad to say I would never trust Dt Smith to give me advice. I trust no one who operated on feelings and unformed conscience. She is not a theologian and sadly people have called her that. She may be very holy in ways but a theologian no. I’m very disturbed to think she would entertain apostasy.
As a major Father Pine fan, it almost pains me to say that I think the wise doctor convinced me in her closing argument. It does seem more ethical to decide what is lying based off of who deserves to know rather than the effects.
A fascinating deep dive into this topic. I greatly enjoyed it!
Matt, tremendous conversation and insightful, skillful, intelligent guests. This is one of the reasons I so much enjoy your channel. Thank you.
This was very good! Both of them!!
Dang, this was really good and thought provoking. Awesome topic!
Good and bad are RELATIVE. ;)
I just listened to this and it was great!!! The thought that kept coming to my mind was from a class on the Virtues by St. Thomas where I first heard of the virtue of Epikeia.
One thing is certain: it would be very nice for the Church to settle this question definitively.
I was totally expecting Father Pine to win. But, now that I watched the whole thing, I'm glad Janet won. Totally shifted my perspective
Hey Matt! Great podcast as usual. Just remember to include the topic of debate in intro lol... it took me some time to figure out what exactly was being argued for or against. Thanks for all the great content!
This play-in music is fire! Matt came on, and I just rewound it to the beginning!
This debate was BRILLIANT and so very much needed - thanks
Interesting to say the least. Fr. Pine and Professoe Janet Smith both did an amazing presentation. I'm still on the fence on the topic which I have wondered about for a long time. I've seen sincere theology students abuse the notion that YOU don't deserve the truth and tell silly lies and I've see the reality of telling the truth to the destruction of other lives. I've seen that sometimes telling the truth will lead others into falsify due to the understandable distrust in the world, and due to the inability of others to (either or both) trust or discern an honest person. I would love to see more debate on the topic but diving deeper perhaps including the spiritual reality of reality. Blessings!
Is it possible that the principle of double effect applies here? Seems like in the hard cases that keep being brought up the intention is protection, not deception. Since the intention is right, and the consequences are not intended, but foreseen, does the principle of double effect apply?
Thanks for doing this Matt, I’ve been chewing on this for a long time. Great debate.
Double effect cannot be used in cases where the object of the act is a moral absolute/ intrinsically disordered.
So if we can agree about what lying is and if we can agree that it is always wrong, then double effect cannot apply.
That contraception talk changed MY life 800 years ago too! I was only a teenager but it is SO powerful! And yup, we had the cassette tape! Listened to it in my mom's old van. ;)
What I’m starting to see now (and I don’t know if it’s because of this debate) is that people are saying that Jesus **lied** in John 7:8-10… It seems to me like people are going as far as saying that Jesus lied (heresy) to justify lying.
Oh my Gosh!!! This is such an excellent debate and at amazingly right time. I was having discussions with Catholic friends and that was going nowhere.
This debate is such a blessing.
I can't say who won but my conscience is definitely well informed.
Thanks @MattFradd
God Bless
If lying is always wrong, why did (for example) St. Therese not attempt to make the truth be known about events that occurred wherein she was ultimately blamed when in fact the blame was rightly placed upon another person? I think there are times when it is okay for the truth to not be known at a given time. Yes, everyone has a right to the truth ultimately, there is also a timeline for such a thing. At the end of time, all truth will be revealed to all, and I believe, along with the points that Dr. Smith makes, that there are different times in which that truth should be made evident. If everyone is owed the right to truth at all times, then why does God not reveal Himself in all His Glory to us from the moment we exist? Because God knows when the best time to reveal Himself to each of us for each of us to have the best chance at spending all eternity with Him.... Would love to hear more of Dr. Smith and Fr. Pine's thoughts on this!
Wow, this really clarified why lying is wrong. I wasn't sure to begin with and this was a long time coming.
If everyone always has the right to the truth, then when the neighborhood women asked me how much weight I gained or what it was like to be pregnant with twins, should I have told each and every one of them that I adopted my husband’s twins and then open the conversation up to more questions, in which i owe them the truth, especially when my kids’ adoption circumstances are really their story to tell & not mine?
This was so epic. I too was nodding agreeably with whoever spoke last. This will have me scratching my head for a while!
That was awesome. I have to side with Fr. Pine at the end, though Dr. Smith really forced me to think this through. Her position smells a little utilitarian.
It does seem utilitarian, although I think the response that Dr. Smith (who is not a utilitarian) would say that the apparent utilitarian weighing the good versus the evil conflicts actually don't exist because the lie being told is not an evil. I think that her argument cannot really escape consequentialism when applied, even if you could get out of the utilitarian appearance.
As someone who dealt with a father with dementia, I agree with Dr. Smith. I watched my father crumble when my mother told him that his mother was dead. (She's been dead since 1977). It would have been cruel to continually break his heart every time he asked about a dead family member.
Haven't watched this yet. My first two reactions from the title alone.
Situation #1 "Ver are de Jews?!" Absolutely, lie without hesitation.
Situation #2 *Gun to head* "Do you believe in Christ?" "Yes." *BANG* "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" -Mathew 10:33
I look forward to watching this when I get the time!
Back to this almost a year later. I still think Fr. Pine won. Went from majoring in biology to philosophy, and now I'm writing a paper on this.
I was more convinced by Fr. Gregory Pine’s argument. Prof. Janet made a good argument but when fr. Pine said that we have to allow for God’s Providence. That our cooperation with sin or not is a testament or scandal for others.
Interesting debate BUT - Jesus never lied, as He never sinned. Not to mention that He is the Truth Himself. I do not presume to know how to qualify what happened there, but as with Jair's dead daughter of whom Jesus said she was asleep - He simply described reality from His Divine perspective. Not to mention that all He ever did was good and in love/with love etc. We do not know all the details of all Jesus's actions and His thoughts. And God's ways are not our ways. But I'd never say He lied. Or that lying in itself is good.
However, the Cathehism of the Catholic Church already solved that debate... - namely points 2488 and 2499 (Respect for the Truth). With all due respect to prof. Smith and Father Pine - WHY wasn't this mentioned? Quite clearly, even though, the "deserve truth" part was cut out in a preceding point, it is emphasized in 2488 and 2499 and even the next one, that not everyone deserves all details of any given situation under all circumstances...
So perhaps yes, everyone deserves the Truth - if you mean the Gospel, or the wrongness of your acts, etc. But we do not have the right to know for instance what sb said in the Confessional; or the oppresive state, doesn't have the right to know the whereabouts of people who are clearly unjustly persecuted like the Jews in your attic.
Case closed. It's all there in the Catechism. It doesn't list all the cases that can happen in one's lifetime, but it does give clear guidelines - proceed with truth AND LOVE.
www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/598/#zoom=z
Excellent and exciting discussion. Truly enjoyed it.
Best. Debate. Ever.
Keep videos like this coming! Thank you señor Fradd. Dr. Janet Smith, I have never heard of you but I think I would love to hear from you and the experience you have had over your life time. I intellectually side with Father Pine but Dr. Janet Smith made an excellent point in her closing remarks and I would say no, Jews are not in my home. Two days later and still thinking about this video.
Best debate ever! Both sides were articulate and respectful but Janet Smith came out on top... she was right on the money, very logical and her replies lined up with the moral sense of the faithful in that the church has not condemn just wars which necessarily includes soldiers in war lying when engaged in spying and subtifuge. Nor has church frowned on police undercover actions --moreover to contextually and metaphysical justify humor deceptions but to state misleading nazis is venial sin is logically incoherent in my view.
I agree with Father Pine.
Pax Christi.
So you TOO are a deluded religionist?
OK. ;)
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Yes! Truth is supreme. Equivocation is not.
@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087, define "TRUTH".
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices The eternal, objective and universal teaching of the one, true, Catholic and Apostolic church. The Divine positive law of the Triune God.
@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 there’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Madam.☝️
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity.
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe, would you not agree, Mrs. Gaffney? 😩
P. S. When I typed “There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above”, I was obviously being sarcastic, since, objectively speaking, your answer was fully inebriated with nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts. :-p
Loved it. God Bless all of you
So good! Many thanks!❤️
Let your yes be yes and your no be no
This was great! Thanks for this. Side note, I think something might be off with the lighting or the dark color of the walls or something.... it looks like you have a floating head.
I'm only a little over halfway through but I find it funny that neither one of them have referred to the catechism of the church yet
The pre-lapsarian argument sounds to me as if to say certain “rights and wrongs” simply didn’t exist or did not have the same moral value before the fall, but this sounds to me like saying truth can change simply because of original sin.
How can it be that the truth of right and wrong can change simply because one has not yet sinned? If Adam and Eve commit a sin, that becomes the Original Sin, right? For example, suppose Eve had lied to the serpent to get out of answering its questions, then what?
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices the 5 ways
You can have an object before you that will look very different from a different vantage point. Truth is Truth; creation is creation - but human nature fell and so did everything around it in a single moment. This is a real historical reality (and mysteriously the one that allows to say "O Happy Fault"). You speak to a sick or bad child differently than you speak to a well or well-behaved one; the aim (to form them/lead them/serve them well) is still the same. All our actions must tend toward and correspond to the Good. The communion of God with man looked completely different pre- and post-fall - makes sense that our spiritual battle in the Church militant as we seek the Good (and work out our salvation with fear and trembling) is going to look very different as well. It seems these questions deal with offenses against justice and calls to charity and solidarity - non-issues in Eden.
@@matthewmayuiers 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The only omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows Absolutely Everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity, which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more intelligent theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful being without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a face, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations, seems to demonstrate this assertion.
Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional former pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), honestly believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna can manage to incorporate relative time into the Absolute sphere (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must necessarily transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from Absolute Truth.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is inherently PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism.
4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source, no matter how unreliable. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart),
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
*************
“Each person’s apparently stable separate identity, each human’s sense of independent authorship of their actions, is part of the plan. It is how God plays, how God rolls, how God roles. God ‘dresses up’ as each person with their quirks, puts them in boring or interesting settings, and then experiences what happens. Far from being a screw up in need of fixing, it is how the universe experiences itself.”
Ramesh S. Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
@Justin Trudeau, kindly refer to my previous comment (assuming that TH-cam have not yet deleted it, as they tend to do with comments from conservatives).
Of course, Father Pine is right that probably if the German Nazis were standing on our doorstep then our answer to the question "are there Jews in the basement" would no longer matter. But, for example, it would be a different matter if, for example, a baker in an occupied country was asked by the Gestapo whether he had noticed that a family had been buying more bread lately (which might indicate that he was hiding someone, such as Jews, or someone else whom the Gestapo was pursuing).
With the "Santa Clause" question, i taught my kids that what most people call Santa Clause is really a mixture of the Actual Historical St. Nicholas and what ALL the angels and saints fo for us all the time!
So Santa Clause delivering gifts reminds us that the holy angels and the saints ALWAYS deliver gifts from The Holy Spirit to us all the time - we just think even more about it at Christmas! And isn't it cool how even a lot of people who don't believe in angels will start to think about how angels ACTUALLY and always do even more than what we imagine Santa Clause does!
Kind of a C.S. Lewis in Narnia type Santa Clause who shows up and is a deep servant of Aslan and who does NOT fear The Witch like other people (he's not a "son of Adam" he IS Father Christmas)!
1:45:20 reminds me all of a sudden of one of my favorite movies, Life is Beautiful
I think Dr Smith has very good arguments but they are based on the conviction that some people do not deserve to know the truth. The question is: who is to decide who doesn’t or does deserve the truth?
Also the lack of trust in God’s providence is rather concerning. In the last example about the starving guy and the apples, who is to say that God can’t it won’t provide for the guy in other ways if he declined to take the apples because he was faithful to God’s command not to steal?
Aquinas (and presumably Pine) thought you could steal the apples but not lie to save a Jew ---- but you can lie for a joke.
That is a problem.
Concerning who gets to decide who deserves the truth, that is most likely left up to a prudential judgement by a well-formed conscience. Sort of similar to the church's teaching regarding voting.
at 15:35 fr mentiones jocose lies ( after quoting from the counsel of trent catechism previosly), he mentions joking with a falsehood is okay, yet that catechism mentions it is not okay at all as it is a practise of an evil and an accosion for greater sin.. i do agree with fr, and in my own belief ,think the catechism needs to be expanded to say at worse it is a venial sin if taken wrongly (in a nonejoking sense); but is better to avoid jocose lies.
Two fantastic minds on a very difficult topic
TL;DR
Bible is not on Pine's side.
Pine's interpretation (citing the Augustinian/ Thomistic stance) of Ex1's midwives, is problematic. Just reading the text, one would never never conclude that what's going on is that God is giving a mitigated blessing; the Bible nowhere goes, "well, they did the wrong thing, but their hearts were in the right place. So, much bless." If there is, it isn't Ex1.
It would also commit you to utilitarianism. "This immoral act is *divinely praiseworthy,* even though it's evil, cuz of intent and outcome." Well, shoot, really tough to defend the category of "intrinsically evil acts," Pine just talked about.
Moreover, look at Judith. This scenario is even *LESS* like the Nazi-at-door thing than Ex1 (straight up espionage and deception) and the sacred author *clearly* celebrates her actions. Heck, the TLM for the Immaculate Conception, sees in the people's celebration of Judith a prefigurement of the *sinless* Theotokos! The Gradual quotes praise of Judith in just this vein: "Thou art the glory of Jerusalem and thou bringest honor to thy people!"
The only reason you'd possible read those passages any differently is you are reading "bare false witness against thy neighbor," in a way no one in the Bronze or Iron ages would have read it: as categorical prohibition of deception, rather than witnessing falsely against another, i.e. in a civil/criminal context. Obviously, as with all the Decalogue, we try to find the root principle (see the Sermon on the Mount) but the rest of the Bible precludes that the underlying principle is what Pine thinks it is.
So too does common sense. It is only philosophers (Kant, Aquinas, etc) who think it's okay to give up the Jews to torture and rape. Thank GOD the common man usually knows better.
I tend to agree with you, but I wonder then if the difference is found in the Nation of Israel as compared to the Church of Christ? Although, if I think about it, the Law of Christ is to love one another. So, what is done out of love (that is, Godly love) cannot be sinful, just as deeds are never righteous if they are done out of anything less. At the very least, "...love covers a multitude of sins."
TLDR:
YOUR interpretation of scripture is not on Fr Pine's side.
Augustine and Aquinas' interpretation of scripture ARE on Fr Pine's side.
Fantastic discussion.
Great debate! Father is great and smart, but i agree with her. If you can even kill to defend your self, imagine lying.
Maybe I skipped something, but did Dr. Smith mention the distincton between restrictio pure mentalis and restrictio late mentalis?
If so, can someone say in wich minute?
Also I would like to hear what moral theology has to say about “clickbaiting”, I think nowadays is so important to talk about it. When yes and when no.
GB🙏
Fantastic debate!
one way of helping this channel is to NOT skip the Ads, maybe you can skip some..or mute. But it will help this channel if not, be a patreon
Fr Pine is very based and he is right.
Great programme, outstanding quality ! I was wondering what about omission ? To stick to the externe WWII example , Jews usually had to make themselves known to the authorities and register at the local town hall. Would omitting to do so be considered a form of lie by omission ? This is obviously an extreme case but you see the logic. Thanks for any views on this .
Wow! Although I love St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine...I will go with Dr. Smith on this😊
I could never imagine going against the 2 greatest minds in church history.
I wish we could go back to saying "must not" of "may not" (instead of "can't"). "So we can't lie" is different from "So we must not lie."
Anything that God would not do, we should not do. Since anything that goes against His character is objectively not good, and He cannot even perform acts that are not good.
We need to make God our standard
Caritas: love covers a multitude of sins (41min)
Importantly, the current catechism (para. 2488-89) actually contains the following sentence: "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." It also authorises the use of "discreet language"," which seems similar to mental reservation. But lying itself doesn't seem allowed. Interesting stuff !
I find it a little disturbing that no one looks to the single person one ought to look for an answer to this question: to Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Wait. I take that back. I do think SOMEONE looks to Jesus, and that would be St. Thomas (et St. Augustine et alius Sanctis). St. Thomas' view on this, as with everything, is not born of abstract thought, but of prayer, contemplation, and the data of faith and revelation. St. Thomas, without explicitly saying so, has asked Jesus what he would do, and he looks for examples in Scripture and/or to internal enlightenment for the solution which he then expresses in precise philosophical language.
To cut to the chase, the point is that there is no example in Scripture of Jesus telling a lie, and I'm willing to bet that the very idea of such a thing, done for ANY reason, fills the present reader with horror. But if that's the case, how can anyone sit here and argue that lying is morally permissible, being contrary to the example of the Lord himself? Jesus refused to lie even to save the life of the Creator of the universe, as well as denouncing lies by gently revealing to Peter the bitter fruit of Peter's own thrice-told fib about knowing him (even though it was told to prevent harm coming to Peter). Examples like these are the historical ground of St. Thomas' position.
All the same, Jesus did leave us an example of another acceptable behavior in the face of unpleasant choices, and that is silence. While Jesus' silence (before Herod, for instance) wasn't because he was tempted to lie, nevertheless he demonstrated that no moral law is broken in simply refusing to answer a question. True, by refusing to answer one may provoke the questioner into assuming one's answer, but any guilt deriving from subsequent events rests with the questioner--clearly making the rule that one's ultimate loyalty must be always to God first and trust in his Providence. We cannot tell a lie even if we think we're doing good, although we can remain silent, or if we are clever like Athanasius*, tell a truth that may possibly be misunderstood.
That's my take on it anyway.
(*) Jesus left us an example of this in his own case when he told his brethren that he was not going up to the Passover feast, only to follow behind them later to Jerusalem, where he, true to his word, did not join in the feast.
Here's a couple points I didn't see answered, and maybe Matt could ask Fr. Pine on another episode:
Premise: Killing in self-defense is ok because in the time that one is acting as an aggressor, he has forfeited his right to life. That right is restored when they are no longer an immediate threat (otherwise vigilantism would be ok). We can momentarily renounce rights due to us by our actions.
Thought/question: The Nazi has a right to the truth generally. But, in the instance that they are going to weaponize truth to do harm, they forfeit their right to that information. Therefore, you no longer owe them the truth about the Jews you're hiding, just as you don't owe the attacker the ability to continue their attack. If a mental reservation is possible, lying would be "excessive force," but if it is the only option, I would argue it is comparable to the self-defense scenario.
By Fr. Pine's logic, it would seem that even camouflage or painting an airport to look like it had been bombed would be evils.
Another thought: Taking apples is not intrinsically evil. So, the father providing for his starving family can take apples, but I could not as someone who is well-provided for. It is not the action that is evil, it's the circumstances that decide if it is appropriating excess for the common good or if it's simply stealing.
Dang. I jumped the gun on this and commented with 20 minutes left in the podcast.... Then this came up. Guess I'm not as clever as I thought
1) God cannot lie [Titus 1:2]
2) There are no non-moral limitations on God's power [Definition of omnipotence]
3) If lying were ever permissible, and God cannot lie, then there are non-moral limitations on God's power [premise]
4) Therefore, lying is never permissible.
Thoughts?
Look at killing in self defense
@@fabiolagarzacreates Doesn't work with God because God has an absolute right to life and we don't. Man killing in self defense is different than God killing.
@@pokezeldamaster39therefore, there are limitations that apply to us, but does not apply to God? Thoughts?
In the biblical story of King Solomon and the two mothers, did King Solomon lie to be able to know who the real mother was? If so, does that justify lying as a means to a good end?
1:36:35 Fr. Pine's stare just killed me
1:48 Good basis for her arguments: The Nazis definition of Jews was not in accord with the true and proper definition of what a Jew is, and therefore they would properly lose the right to the truth in this context, since Jews are human beings and Nazis did not recognize them as such. As well, the beatific vision is the vision of the truth without the veil of faith; however, not everyone will have the right to it, but only those Who love God until the end!
also based on the idea of “interior logic” (1:37:53) from the Dominican priest with this interior logic a person would not be telling a lie but protecting what belongs to God.
I’m leaning towards Dr. Smith. I’m one of those that believe that sometimes, the intention is more important than the action. God may not necessarily judge all the actions you carry out in your life to determine whether or not you technically sinned. It’s based on the content of our hearts I believe.
Amazing debate, Can i agree to both of them?
I just trust that the Holy Spirit will guide me when I end up lying and causing injury to my own soul or another soul.
There's a third option which is refusal to answer, giving reason
Christ himself did not answer the self incriminating questions put to him
the "hot blonde" joke was not a lie because it is a painting in her imagination. And imaginations are not lies. Just like fables are not lies but are also not necessarily true.
Fr. Gregory Pine had the best arguments I recon, but Dr. Janet Smith's Santa example was perfect.
I would add, Fr. P. (in my opinion),is absolutely correct in his assessment. God is not a truth, God is Truth. Anytime we do not tell the truth we fall short of the mark, and any short fall is a defect of our true nature and not as God wills. Similarly, by believing we are the arbiters of what will or will not be good,, we discount God's perfect knowledge, will, and reject his providence which we are always called to trust and believe. Even if the short term outcome seems contrary to our reasoning. Second, prelapsararian Adam and Eve, contrary to Dr. Smiths very good overall assessments, would not have had sex toward the end of having children. Rather, their end would have been, (given the boundaries of the argument), love!!..children are the fruit of love, love is the object, intention, and end all by itself, because God is to whom all actions (only actions with God as the end are actually true actions) are directed. Children are the superabundent fruit of love, created life, and only God, who is love, who is life, can create, and all that is created is good, because God's essence is goodness itself. God's love, which is reality, was not even used, if I am correct, in this case.
The main thing this is making me wonder is if not answering the question at all is a lie or not. Since answering they are here results in death but answering no is a lie. So answering "i went to the nazi rally so what do you think" would not be responding.