This topic was brought up in another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread.  

According to the Church's moral teachings, is it licit to lie if you are asked whether you have had the vaxx (whether in the form of a fake vaxx card or just telling others you have taken it)?  Does it depend on the circuмstances/ the person asking you? If it is not licit, is it venial in nature or would circuмstances also change whether it is venial or mortal?  

Trying to avoid lying (ie. giving an answer that doesn't lie, but avoids truly answering the question truthfully because the person asking you doesn't have the "right to know") seems to be something that will be increasingly more difficult to do. 

So, for instance, you'll see that a "jocose lie" is considered venial, but I would disagree ... due to context.  I could say a materially false statement as a joke, to pull someone's leg ... even if briefly.  I don't hold that such is a sin because the context is one of joking.  Similarly, I could make a statement with a SARCASTIC tone.  With SARCASM, you actually often say the opposite of the truth, materially, in order to actually mock the falseness of the statement.  If one extends the notion of context, I believe that you could come up with a solution to the age-old scenario of telling a falsehood to save someone's life, or even the dishonest answer to "Do I look fat in this dress?"  It wouldn't then be a question of "ends justifies the means" but, rather, one of context and tone.

I actually tend to agree with the position (dismissed at the end of the CE article cited above) that whether a person has a "right to the truth" makes a difference.  Traditionally the discussion has been around whether your statement is at variance with your own mind.  But the purpose and nature of language is to communicate what's in your mind to ANOTHER's mind.  I believe that's the missing ingredient in the classical approach to the problem.  I have no obligation to communicate the contents of MY mind to ANOTHER's mind of the person has no right to the information, especially if they SHOULD NOT have the information due to their intent to use it for evil.

I'm skeptical about it. Mental reservation can only get you so far, which is the best tactic. But, a lie is still a lie. There's a consideration that it could simply be venial due to the circuмstances, but it is still an offense against God. And in this case you're willfully committing a sin for the sake of avoiding temporal harm or penalties.

My first thought on this is -- they don't have a right to know. So I'm thinking mental reservation at least, if not strict mental reservation.

Do we really have to use our power of speech to destroy ourselves or our loved ones? It's not like the honor of God is at stake, like in the case of the early martyrs. They couldn't have lied (or even mental reservation) about worshiping a false god, because that would dishonor God.

What about the fact that we might have to do some serious "deception" to gain access to a grocery store? Considering that when you're actually starving, ALL things are common, i.e., even stealing enough to survive is acceptable, how much more so refusing the truth to a person demanding your vax passport?

Just my thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong.

I would suggest everyone read the CE article.  It's a contested subject.

I think that root problem is an incomplete definition of what speech is.  It's characterized as a manifestation of one's mind.  But the part that's missing is that speech is not just standalone.  If I walk around in my house making false statements without anyone around, is that lie and a sin?

No the purpose of speech is to MANIFEST MY MIND to SOMEONE ELSE.  That's a piece that's being missed.  I do not always have an obligation to manifest my mind to someone else.  Based on that reasoning, if the person has no right to know about something, I could actually tell a falsehood because the FALSE information is precisely all that the person is entitled to know.  There's no sin in the mere utterance of a false proposition ... as per that scenario where I'm running around my house saying false things.

All I'm saying is that the Saints would have rather died than willingly commit a sin. We aren't in a situation (yet) where it is costing us our lives to not have the jab. I'll read the article.

That's not the point.  What's at issue is whether it is a sin.  Granted, if it's a sin, you can't do it regardless of circuмstances.

It's one thing to die yourself; it's another thing to cause someone else to die.  "Yep, that person you're unjustly seeking out to murder is in my bedroom; I'll go get him for you."  You don't think THAT would be a sin?

If some random person were to ask another person who just came out of the Confessional, "Did you confess the sin of fornication?"  That person has absolutely no right to that information.  Let's say you prevaricate because you don't want to lie, then the person might assume that you did.  So sometimes a mere mental reservation actually gives away a truth that someone doesn't have a right to know.  And playing games with mental reservations seems childish and juvenile.

I have a lot of sympathy with the position that, given that the nature of language is to manifest your mind to SOMEONE ELSE, if that someone else has no right to the information, it's not a lie to just say "No."  In other words, with the premise "AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED".  I tend to agree with that position.  But if a parent asks a child, "Did you break this window?" since the parent has a right to know, THEN it would be a lie.  In fact, even the moralists who agree with mental reservation say that a mental reservation would be a sin IN THAT CASE.  Why?  Because there's the "right to know" component.  So why does that "right to know" component not extent to a materially false statement.

So if someone were to ask, "Is that [falsely accused] criminal in your house?" I don't see any sin in saying, "No, that person is not in my house."  While theology has made much of formal vs. material in every other field of theology, it's ignored when it comes to lying.  This would be a case where the proposition is materially false but it's not formally a lie ... when you understand that the formality of the lie is not in the materially false proposition but in the deception of someone who has a right to know something.

I can see where some theologians come to the conclusion that lying may be permissible, but, I still think it is much more prudent to take the strict stance of avoiding a lie in any sense, as detailed in the CE article:

I disagree.  That's a "tutiorist" approach.  I disagree with it for the reasons stated.  If you start hemming and hawing about a question when interrogated about whether someone is hiding in your house, that could give the person away, and that would be a huge sin against the person.

As I said, the definition of why lying is wrong is inadequate, and the formal vs. material aspect not being considered.

That's not the point.  What's at issue is whether it is a sin.  Granted, if it's a sin, you can't do it regardless of circuмstances.

It's one thing to die yourself; it's another thing to cause someone else to die.  "Yep, that person you're unjustly seeking out to murder is in my bedroom; I'll go get him for you."  You don't think THAT would be a sin?

If some random person were to ask another person who just came out of the Confessional, "Did you confess the sin of fornication?"  That person has absolutely no right to that information.  Let's say you prevaricate because you don't want to lie, then the person might assume that you did.  So sometimes a mere mental reservation actually gives away a truth that someone doesn't have a right to know.  And playing games with mental reservations seems childish and juvenile.

I have a lot of sympathy with the position that, given that the nature of language is to manifest your mind to SOMEONE ELSE, if that someone else has no right to the information, it's not a lie to just say "No."  In other words, with the premise "AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED".  I tend to agree with that position.  But if a parent asks a child, "Did you break this window?" since the parent has a right to know, THEN it would be a lie.  In fact, even the moralists who agree with mental reservation say that a mental reservation would be a sin IN THAT CASE.  Why?  Because there's the "right to know" component.  So why does that "right to know" component not extent to a materially false statement.

So if someone were to ask, "Is that [falsely accused] criminal in your house?" I don't see any sin in saying, "No, that person is not in my house."  While theology has made much of formal vs. material in every other field of theology, it's ignored when it comes to lying.  This would be a case where the proposition is materially false but it's not formally a lie ... when you understand that the formality of the lie is not in the materially false proposition but in the deception of someone who has a right to know something.

Yes, I agree. The truth is not owed to a person who has no right to it. 

Is it a sin for me to walk around my house uttering false statements? 

Clearly the answer is NO.

Why?

Because the formal nature of a lie is NOT merely in the material utterance of a false statement but it has to do with COMMUNICATING the falsehood to someone else.  That part has been missing from the discussion.

One you add in that aspect, then the picture regarding the morality of lying changes.  I am under no obligation to share information with someone else if they don't have a right to know it.  I communicate to them only what they have a right to know.  They have no right to know that someone is hiding in my house.  So there's no sin against justice ... which is really the issue rather than a material discrepancy between reality.

So I think that the definitions were wrong from the beginning and they clouded discussion of the issue.