A Muslim relative shared a teaching of which I was not previously aware. Is this accurate? Fellow Catholics, thoughts?
He basically said that if a Muslim found himself in a situation in which he had a choice between literal death and breaking Muslim law, he should break the law. He further said that obeying the law to the point of death would be considered a sin because life is so valuable.
He then provided an example. He said that if a Muslim is starving and the only thing available to him was a pig, he should eat pork to save his life. To not do so would be sinful.
during the war it’s allowed for us to lie
if an enemy comes to you asking you where you’re other soldiers are, would you tell him? Off course not, and if you were forced into giving the enemy army some information, you would give him false information (whatever to save yourself or save your friends ).
The law says eating pork is a sin for a Muslim, but when faced with starvation and it’s the only source of sustenance, then it’s permissible to eat pork under the circumstances. God is not cruel to his servants.
Lying is also a Sin for a Muslim, but if it means protecting yourself, your family, and others from those who would commit violence against them, then it’s permissible under the circumstances.
Christians should not hold a double standard in this regard, there are I’m sure documented historical records of Christians protecting Jews in their homes and churches from Nazi Germans that wanted to put the Jews in concentration camps. I’m sure there were also Jews that lied about their ethnicity so as not to be persecuted by the Germans. Nobody in their right mind will blame the Jews or the Christians for Lying to the Germans.
Sometimes in the 70’s I don’t remember the exact year. Aplane fell down on a remote mountain. and the survivors ahd to eat the flesh of their fellow dead passengers in order to survive untill they were spotted and rescued.
At the time my understanding the Pope absolved them from any sin ( cannibalizing)
wrong, you have read the bible no?
Remember when Jesus was denied by Peter?
I wont be doing the same thing, i would die rather than deny i worship God.
I follow Jesus, and will never deny him, during war, or whenever.
Well yes i would lie about that too. But my question is about matters of faith. In Islam if someone holds a gun to your head and asks you to renounce Islam, would you do it? I mean you wouldn’t actually be telling the truth since later you would go back (thus lying to the person) but would you still be allowed to do that?
I wouldn’t lie about my own religion. I would probably tell the person “that gun better be loaded cause if its not then prepare for the beating of your life” but who am I to say. If the time comes then it comes.
In Christianity, law is always abidding, and there are two types of sin: venial and mortal.
A lie is always a mortal sin, so you can’t lie even if you want to protect your fellow soldiers. (In such a circumstance, silence is golden)
In the case of cannibalism, the act of cannibalism is a mortal sin. The Pope absolved them, meaning he forgave them their sin. He did not lessen the gravity of the sin, he just used his priestly power (acting in the person of Christ) to absolve the sin.
What the Muslims are not telling us is that in dar al harb (our infidel lands) they are in a state of war and so lying is acceptable to us. Leaving out some parts of the truth is also ok in Islam.
As for documenting lying in Christians - or anyone else - maybe we could stick to the basic teachings which say that lying is a sin vs lying is ok in dar al harb.
And keep in mind, that they don’t tell us that we are in a state of war because we either don’t accept Islam peacefully (at their call to Islam, da’wa) or are not under Sharia laws. We have no idea we are in a state of war against anyone in our own lands even if we let immigrants into our lands to enjoy our lands, and government. Hence this is why we have been having attacks on our soil, and our citizens abroad, by the Jihadists.
I don’t think your facts are accurate. I remember reading about this event at the time it happened. It involved a soccer team that crashed in the Andes. Most of the people involved were Catholic. They ate frozen slivers of the flesh of their dead friends even though it was repugnant to them to do this. The priests and bishops of the local areas stated that this was no sin and entirely justifiable. It was not something that needed to be confessed or forgiven. I don’t remember the pope making a statement about this but if he did it was to reiterate what the priests had already said.
I’m also not sure that the act of cannibalism in itself is defined as a mortal sin. We hold the human body in great respect even in death. Deliberate defacing of it or eating it would certainly be in some way sinful depending on the motivation of the person doing so, but possibly not mortal.
I remember studying in moral theology in college many years ago that some things that would normally be judged sinful may not be sinful at all if necessary to preserve your own life or that of another. For instance, stealing is a sin. However, if you are lost in the woods and starving and come upon a deserted cabin it is justifiable to break in and eat the food inside because your life outweighs the other person’s right to his property. There is no sin in doing this. (If possible, one should later replace what is taken.)
In the same way, killing someone would ordinarily be mortally sinful. But if you are attacked and kill the attacker because it is the only way to save your own life it is not sinful. However, if you could have avoided killing him (for instance, someone was coming at you with a knife and you were a very good shot and could easily have disabled him but you purposely shot him in the heart instead) but killed him anyway, you would have sinned because you took his life when it wasn’t necessary to do so to protect yourself.
Lying is a sin. However if you mislead someone in order to save the life of an innocent person, it is a very minor sin or perhaps no sin at all because the person you mislead has no right to kill the innocent person. Thus they have no right to the truth. In many cases it would be possible to mislead someone without telling an outright lie.
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. the deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. the culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.