A question about lying to save lives

[Tietjen]

I know that

On the other hand, if it’s the truth then sometimes you’ve got to say it even if it hurts feelings a little. Someone who calls for the boss should accept that they’re not available anyway, and the cook should take the hint and not make meatloaf for you again (at least not until they perfect the recipe). You can soften it, for example, by saying that you appreciate the effort it must’ve taken to make it.

I wouldn’t want to say any food was great when it wasn’t, otherwise they might cook it for you all the time.

First, there is no good receipe for meatloaf.
Second, whatever the dish being served, it should be eaten without insult or the possibility of hurt feelings. Primarily, because charity dictates it, but secondly because you may find yourself alone and without a friend and eating TV dinners in your flat. But hey, perhaps being polite is no longer in fashion. I suppose that I will continue in my evil ways then.

 

[Tietjen]

This position is based on the premise that lying violates natural law because:

• A) the purpose and primary end of speech is to communicate what is in one’s mind, and second
• B) It is vital to human society that speech be used to truthfully to communicate what is on one’s mind.

Well, wouldn’t silence then be a violation of B. If you simply refuse to answer a question, you certainly are not using speech “… truthfully to communicate what is on one’s mind.” You are abstaining from speech; speech that you point out is “vital to human society.” This would then be, using your definition, arguably sinful as well.

So, here then is my delima. I’m a deputy sheriff. There are times that I must lie in order to get the truth from someone. Yes, it is legal and happens everyday (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969)). I don’t feel guilty for doing it and I don’t confess it when I go to confession. So, if what you say is true, then I either need to leave law enforcement or risk damnation since I do not have a repentant heart on this matter. Well, I think that I’ll continue to serve and protect. If my lie saves your child’s life, don’t think that I will go before God and ask for forgiveness, because what I did cannot be called evil and I cannot imagine you admonishing me for it if it did happen. God bless.

 

[LilyM]

First, there is no good receipe for meatloaf.
Second, whatever the dish being served, it should be eaten without insult or the possibility of hurt feelings. Primarily, because charity dictates it, but secondly because you may find yourself alone and without a friend and eating TV dinners in your flat. But hey, perhaps being polite is no longer in fashion. I suppose that I will continue in my evil ways then.

So for you telling the truth automatically equals impoliteness and hurt feelings and and lying automatically equals politeness? Even when you know by your false compliments you’re setting someone up for huge disappointment down the track when they eventually meet people who DON’T falsely compliment them, and probably even greater hurt feelings as a result?

Sounds like you haven’t learned how to speak tactfully, nor learned the importance of honesty (which need not either be savage or impolite in any way). There are very few times in ordinary social situations that you really, if you try, cannot find a way to ‘unite civility and truth’ as Jane Austen put it.

More to the point, it’s more important to you not to hurt someone’s feelings than to not offend God who is Truth with the sin of lying? Since when? Isn’t that what a theologian would call putting human respect before God’s law?

And for your information, I have plenty of friends, even friends who can’t cook but do try (bless 'em) - and I’ve never had to pretend they’re great chefs to keep 'em. The ones who can’t cook brilliantly know it without me telling and they would see through me straight away if I started calling them culinary wizzes.

 

[BlaineTog]

Lets discuss “white lies” such as: “He’s not in the office, can I take a message?” or “Yes, the meatloaf is excellent.”

The former could be just a euphemism, ans the latter hurts the person in the long run. Like, would you rather step outside your home, ready for the new day, and have your neighbor tell you that your fly’s undone, or find it out for yourself when you got home?

To facilitate the act of murder (e.g. tell a Nazi of the location of Jews) is a violation of the Fifth Commandment.

Telling the Nazis where the Jews are is not the same as not saying anything, even if in both cases they find the Jews. It’s similar to a maniac telling you that if you don’t kill someone, he will: that the event will happen anyway doesn’t entitle you to sin.

But if you in any way attempt to conceal this knowledge, this is deception, a violation of the Eighth Commandment.

“Concealment” and lying are different things. v It’s perfectly acceptable to not put your social security number and bank PIN on your business card. In fact, you’re even allowed to keep both those things in a locked drawer if you want and not tell someone even if they ask! But at the same time, if they ask, you certainly shouldn’t give them the wrong number.

In this case, I would hypothesize that obedience to the Fifth Commandment trumps the Eighth Commandment due to the immediate consequences of the action (much in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that “clear and present danger” trumps the Constitutional right to free speech in Schenk v. U.S.).

State policy is hardly an infallible guide for morality.

Also, the person conceals the knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jews with the primary intention to save their lives.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You may have all sorts of good reasons, but it wouldn’t make, say, abortion ok.

The Gestapo knew perfectly well that in order to preserve the life of Jews, well intentioned people would lie to them. Thus, since they thrust two options that alone are sinful, they take the full blame for any lies a person says.

No, there’s always plenty of sin to go around. The serpent was liable for educing Adam and Eve into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but this doesn’t eliminate culpability for Adam and Eve as well.

Lying is not wrong because it is a bad action, it is because it displeases God. So, if God is not displeased in the instance, then there is nothing wrong with it. So then I would again ask you, so what if it is lying?

First, what makes you think lying (ie harming the truth) isn’t a “bad action”? Second, what makes you think this instance didn’t displease God?

BlaineTog,
I’d lie to save you. You can be disappointed and call my act a sin if you wish, but I’d still do it. Perhaps I am just an evil person. Pray for me and God bless.

I don’t think you’re evil, but I also don’t want you to lie. (If it ever comes up, by the way, don’t lie to prolong my life, or for anything to do with me).

Yes, and teach your children to tell the truth when and stranger calls and asks to speak to their mommy or daddy when they are out running an errand? “My mommy and daddy aren’t here right now.” Or as my children were taught, “My dad is in the shower, can I have him call you back when he gets out?”

Well, we screen our calls and let them go to voicemail if we don’t know the person, but the child could always say, “Mommy can’t come to the phone right now, can I take a message?” Though frankly, this seems like an extremely paranoid attitude to take (I don’t have kids, though, so maybe it seems more reasonable if you do).

Second, whatever the dish being served, it should be eaten without insult or the possibility of hurt feelings. Primarily, because charity dictates it, but secondly because you may find yourself alone and without a friend and eating TV dinners in your flat. But hey, perhaps being polite is no longer in fashion. I suppose that I will continue in my evil ways then.

Politeness is secondary to Truth. Jesus was impolite all over the place in the gospels, and I’m sure they don’t mention all the times he told someone something they didn’t want to hear. One should certainly be polite as much as possible, but some bruised feelings are hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

[Tietjen]

So for you telling the truth automatically equals impoliteness and hurt feelings and and lying automatically equals politeness?

You assume too much. This is not what I said. Please re-read my posts.

Even when you know by your false compliments you’re setting someone up for huge disappointment down the track when they eventually meet people who DON’T falsely compliment them, and probably even greater hurt feelings as a result?

If they ask me how the food is, I will not tell them that I don’t like it. If my wife were to ask me whether she looked good in a dress that she obviously liked and was modeling for me, I would not crush her feelings and tell her I didn’t like the way she looked regardless what the dress looked like. You can think me cruel, evil or whatever else you so chose, but at least I cannot be thought of as rude.

Sounds like you haven’t learned how to speak tactfully, nor learned the importance of honesty (which need not either be savage or impolite in any way).

Oh contraire, I believe that I am quite tactful. However, when I know that someone has taken time and effort to do something nice, such as make me a meal, I will not tell them that I do not like it regardless how I actually feel about it.

There are very few times in ordinary social situations that you really, if you try, cannot find a way to ‘unite civility and truth’ as Jane Austen put it.

That would depend on the person you were speaking to in that “social situation.” There are those people in society that will be offended/hurt if you slyly avoid answering a direct question concerning their cooking.

More to the point, it’s more important to you not to hurt someone’s feelings than to not offend God who is Truth with the sin of lying? Since when? Isn’t that what a theologian would call putting human respect before God’s law?

Well, I’ll be truthful here because this is simply getting too ridiculous (despite the fun I’m having with it). I do not believe that God is going to damn me to Hell if I tell someone that I enjoyed their meatloaf. I do not go into the confessional and confess to the priest that I told my wife that I liked her new red dress when I really didn’t. Call me evil…

And for your information, I have plenty of friends, even friends who can’t cook but do try (bless 'em) - and I’ve never had to pretend they’re great chefs to keep 'em. The ones who can’t cook brilliantly know it without me telling and they would see through me straight away if I started calling them culinary wizzes.

Forgive me if I came off as suggesting that you were friendless. I did not mean to offend you if you took it that way.

Let me ask you, does your opinion of this issue extend to children as well. For example, let’s say you have a son/nephew/etc. and he was say 7 years old. He was on a children’s football team and was so excited about you coming to one of his games to watch him play. Let’s say he didn’t play well at all in the game, and in fact, didn’t accomplish anything positive. Yet, after the game he comes running up to you all excited and with a huge smile on his face. He grabs your hand, and while jumping up and down with excitement asks you if he did well. Now, according to you, God expects us to either stand there and remain silent; to somehow be sly and change the subject to avoid answering the question; or to tell the little boy the truth. Hmm… sorry, I don’t think so.

 

[LilyM]

Let me ask you, does your opinion of this issue extend to children as well. For example, let’s say you have a son/nephew/etc. and he was say 7 years old. He was on a children’s football team and was so excited about you coming to one of his games to watch him play. Let’s say he didn’t play well at all in the game, and in fact, didn’t accomplish anything positive. Yet, after the game he comes running up to you all excited and with a huge smile on his face. He grabs your hand, and while jumping up and down with excitement asks you if he did well. Now, according to you, God expects us to either stand there and remain silent; to somehow be sly and change the subject to avoid answering the question; or to tell the little boy the truth. Hmm… sorry, I don’t think so.

Of course I can say ‘you did well’ with a good conscience and perfect truth in this situation. So what if he didn’t score any goals or perform any brilliant technical tricks? If he played with enthusiasm and did his best, then he absolutely accomplished something positive and played well.

What I don’t need to do and would never do, even if he asked for it, and even if it hurts him - is to lie - to say ‘you played like Beckham’ (or Maradona for those of us of an older generation - Beckham is nothing compared to him) or some such patent falsehood.

So with someone who cooks something - of course I can say ‘I appreciate the effort you went to’, which is truth. I can even say ‘it was fantastic’ with perfect truth - it WAS fantastic for them to make the effort on my behalf.

Without saying or implying that it was horrible, I will tell more truth if it’s really warranted (ie if the food was truly inedible) - something like ‘I prefer meatloaf to be a bit saltier/spicier/cooked for a longer/shorter time’ or what have you.

That way I speak to my own preferences and not to their abilities, and if anyone is offended by that then they are really being way oversensitive, how can any reasonable person expect that everyone will be in raptures over everything they cook?

 

[Tietjen]

Well, we screen our calls and let them go to voicemail if we don’t know the person, but the child could always say, “Mommy can’t come to the phone right now, can I take a message?” Though frankly, this seems like an extremely paranoid attitude to take (I don’t have kids, though, so maybe it seems more reasonable if you do).

Not everyone has voicemail or caller ID and the child not knowing whether it is Mommy or Daddy may very well pick it up. As for the issue of this seeming like a paranoid attitude, perhaps it is. But as you pointed out, you don’t have kids. I’d also add that my past experiences growing up in Miami and within my profession, make me very aware of the types of people that inhabit our neighborhoods. I’ve heard it said by some, that they never lock their doors. I have to shake my head at this as well, but I suppose it depends on the environment in which one lives.

Politeness is secondary to Truth. Jesus was impolite all over the place in the gospels, and I’m sure they don’t mention all the times he told someone something they didn’t want to hear. One should certainly be polite as much as possible, but some bruised feelings are hardly the worst thing in the world.

Can you point out to me these impolite occurrences? Don’t include things like the money changers in the Temple. I’m talking about impoliteness, as when someone is attempting to do something nice for you or to help you in some way and you insult them for their efforts.

 

[LilyM]

Can you point out to me these impolite occurrences? Don’t include things like the money changers in the Temple. I’m talking about impoliteness, as when someone is attempting to do something nice for you or to help you in some way and you insult them for their efforts.

What about Peter trying (so he thought) to help Jesus by persuading him not to go to Jerusalem and be killed, in Matthew 16, and being called ‘Satan’ for his pains!

 

[Tietjen]

Of course I can say ‘you did well’ with a good conscience and perfect truth in this situation. So what if he didn’t score any goals or perform any brilliant technical tricks? If he played with enthusiasm and did his best, then he absolutely accomplished something positive and played well.

Well, if you define playing well with as being enthusiastic and simply trying hard, then I see your point. So then, if a football team loses every game in the season, yet they tried hard, would you also consider them as having had a good season? You and I are splitting hairs here. It seems that we would both be telling the young boy the same thing, yet when I do it it’s a lie and when you do it it’s not a lie simply because we both are defining “well” differently. So, if I can justify in my mind a new way of defining something, I can say almost anything and not be lying?

What I don’t need to do and would never do, even if he asked for it, and even if it hurts him - is to lie - to say ‘you played like Beckham’ (or Maradona for those of us of an older generation - Beckham is nothing compared to him) or some such patent falsehood.

I can agree with that, assuming of course I knew who either of those players were.

So with someone who cooks something - of course I can say ‘I appreciate the effort you went to’, which is truth. I can even say ‘it was fantastic’ with perfect truth - it WAS fantastic for them to make the effort on my behalf.

So you don’t see that by simply saying, “It was fantastic” you are being deceptive? See, now I am confused for sure. How is saying something that you know will be misunderstood, not be the same as lying? That rather reminds me of a former US President who denied having sex with an intern because of the manner in which the act was committed. You may very well know what you mean when you say, “it was fantastic” but because you don’t define what you actually found fantastic, you are leaving the cook believing that the food itself was fantastic. While you may see this as a clever way out of a tight situation, I doubt that many would agree with you that this isn’t an actual lie.

 

[Tietjen]

What about Peter trying (so he thought) to help Jesus by persuading him not to go to Jerusalem and be killed, in Matthew 16, and being called ‘Satan’ for his pains!

Was Peter Satan? No. So, who was Christ speaking to? Was He speaking to Peter himself or to the one influencing Peter?

 

[LilyM]

Well, if you define playing well with as being enthusiastic and simply trying hard, then I see your point. So then, if a football team loses every game in the season, yet they tried hard, would you also consider them as having had a good season? You and I are splitting hairs here. It seems that we would both be telling the young boy the same thing, yet when I do it it’s a lie and when you do it it’s not a lie simply because we both are defining “well” differently. So, if I can justify in my mind a new way of defining something, I can say almost anything and not be lying?

I never said it would be a lie for you to say the same as I (now that WOULD be stupid, wouldn’t it). It would be a lie to go further - to slip into patent untruth, which my instance doesn’t do. There’s no particular cleverness or tricksiness about defining ‘good’ in the way I have - ‘good’ and ‘well’ in terms of sport are not to be defined only by goals scored or games won, not by anyone’s definition of the words.

The difference between us is that if you are pushed further you WOULD proceed to tell a patent untruth - for example to the classic ‘does my bum look big in this’ you’d say ‘no, it looks tiny’ even if that is the opposite of what is true, or ‘was the meatloaf good’ you’d say ‘it tasted great’ which, again, is the opposite of the truth.

So you don’t see that by simply saying, “It was fantastic” you are being deceptive? See, now I am confused for sure. How is saying something that you know will be misunderstood, not be the same as lying? That rather reminds me of a former US President who denied having sex with an intern because of the manner in which the act was committed. You may very well know what you mean when you say, “it was fantastic” but because you don’t define what you actually found fantastic, you are leaving the cook believing that the food itself was fantastic. While you may see this as a clever way out of a tight situation, I doubt that many would agree with you that this isn’t an actual lie.

No, I’m not being deceptive, and yes she’s understanding me right. The food itself really IS fantastic, being the product of all that effort. If she specified ‘did it taste good’, or asked me WHAT was good about it, then some gentle criticism and more explicit truth-telling would come into it if necessary.

Besides which, there’s no ‘tell the WHOLE truth’ requirement, except in sworn statements where you swear to do so or something. Certainly one mustn’t lie or intentionally mislead, but one is not obliged to tell the whole truth in every circumstance. Case in point - Abraham saying Sarah was his sister when she was only his half sister - God had no problems with Abraham not telling the WHOLE truth about that at all, the problem was his outright lying about her not being his wife when she was.

 

[LilyM]

Was Peter Satan? No. So, who was Christ speaking to? Was He speaking to Peter himself or to the one influencing Peter?

‘Satan’ in Hebrew is not a proper name, it is simply a word meaning ‘enemy’ or ‘adversary’. So there’s no reason why He couldn’t have been addressing Peter directly, as opposing him (being his adversary) in this instance.

 

[Tietjen]

‘Satan’ in Hebrew is not a proper name, it is simply a word meaning ‘enemy’ or ‘adversary’. So there’s no reason why He couldn’t have been addressing Peter directly, as opposing him (being his adversary) in this instance.

I doubt very seriously whether our Lord resorted to name-calling. However, at the very least neither of us can be certain so, the situation is speculative at best. I do however; find it much more fitting that Christ was speaking to the one influencing St. Peter rather than St. Peter himself. One other question relating to this however, is “Satan” a proper name in Aramaic? Moreover, what about in Greek, the language in which our Bible was originally written in?

 

[Tietjen]

I never said it would be a lie for you to say the same as I (now that WOULD be stupid, wouldn’t it). It would be a lie to go further - to slip into patent untruth, which my instance doesn’t do. There’s no particular cleverness or tricksiness about defining ‘good’ in the way I have - ‘good’ and ‘well’ in terms of sport are not to be defined only by goals scored or games won, not by anyone’s definition of the words.

The difference between us is that if you are pushed further you WOULD proceed to tell a patent untruth - for example to the classic ‘does my bum look big in this’ you’d say ‘no, it looks tiny’ even if that is the opposite of what is true, or ‘was the meatloaf good’ you’d say ‘it tasted great’ which, again, is the opposite of the truth.

No, I’m not being deceptive, and yes she’s understanding me right. The food itself really IS fantastic, being the product of all that effort. If she specified ‘did it taste good’, or asked me WHAT was good about it, then some gentle criticism and more explicit truth-telling would come into it if necessary.

Besides which, there’s no ‘tell the WHOLE truth’ requirement, except in sworn statements where you swear to do so or something. Certainly one mustn’t lie or intentionally mislead, but one is not obliged to tell the whole truth in every circumstance. Case in point - Abraham saying Sarah was his sister when she was only his half sister - God had no problems with Abraham not telling the WHOLE truth about that at all, the problem was his outright lying about her not being his wife when she was.

LOL - LilyM, I respect your opinion. I really do (not a lie). But I think that you and I will not come to an agreement on this issue because we both define a lie differently. I hope that you have no hard feelings toward me, as I absolutely have none toward you. However, I believe that if we continue down this conversation, we will only be repeating ourselves. Unless and until we can agree on what lying actually is, we should probably not debate it. Take care and God bless you.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, wouldn’t silence then be a violation of B (“It is vital to human society that speech be used to truthfully to communicate what is on one’s mind”)… If you simply refuse to answer a question, you certainly are not using speech “… truthfully to communicate what is on one’s mind.” You are abstaining from speech; speech that you point out is “vital to human society.” This would then be, using your definition, arguably sinful as well.

Tietjen,

Not exactly, but it is a good observation. My point B above describes one of the reasons why lying violates natural law. The only way that not speaking would be immoral is if one has an affirmative duty *to *speak. In other words, abstaining from a legitimate course of action is not evil, unless one has the duty to perform the action in the first place.

I would suppose that in general we do have an affirmative duty as citizens to use speech to communicate. But we don’t have an affirmative duty in each and every circumstance to speak, nor does everyone have the same duty. That is why you can remain silent during a play, or a monk can even take a lifelong vow of silence.

It is similar to the general duty to “go forth and multiply.” This general duty does not apply to all (i.e. a celibate) nor at all times. Abstaining is perfectly acceptable, even though it is something that human society depends on. What is not acceptable is the misuse of the faculty. And that goes for the use of power of speech and the use of the procreative power.

If I may make an observation on the current conversation: It seems as if you are arguing from experience – i.e. from all the times throughout the day when lying seems a viable option. The problem is that all of (if I can be so bold) do lie. Hopefully most of the time they are venially sinful. Sometimes it is not subjectively sinful due to lack of freedom or lack of intent, etc. But what we are trying to get at in this conversation, (so it seems to me), is the objective moral status of lying.

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Back to the original topic.

Lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral. It is never moral to lie under any circumstances.

St. Catherine of Siena said that she would not commit the smallest sin, not even to redeem the whole world from Hell.

“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the ‘creativity’ of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67).

 

[redrosetea]

I was once told by a very holy priest there is a thing called mental reservation…It means that a person will not tell you some information for a very good reason

Exapmle someone calls to speak to you on the phone…it is someone that you really don’t want to talk to…so someone in your family tells them you are not home

This mean they are not home to the person they didn’t want to talk too, not that they are not at home

 

[BlaineTog]

Not everyone has voicemail or caller ID and the child not knowing whether it is Mommy or Daddy may very well pick it up.

Who doesn’t have voicemail these days? It and caller ID are standard far for cell phone plans (most don’t even bother advertising them except in the fine print), and if for some reason you have a home phone without built-in voicemail, you could pick up a voicemail machine at any garage sale for twenty-five cents.

But ok, let’s assume an obscure case where the phone is ringing without some sort of voicemail or caller ID and the only person around capable of picking it up is a child who will invariably be kidnapped if the person on the other end of the line thinks they are home alone. First, this is a bad situation to begin with, so there won’t necessarily be a good option. If the child is so young that s/he doesn’t know how to speak discretely and is so helpless that s/he would be unable to protect the home at least a little from intruders (by not opening the door, by calling the police, or by calling the neighbors, at the very least), then the child should not have been left home alone in the first place. Second, in this case, the child should simply tell the person that mommy and daddy can’t come to the phone right now, which is true. If the person presses them, they could just repeat themselves.

Can you point out to me these impolite occurrences? Don’t include things like the money changers in the Temple. I’m talking about impoliteness, as when someone is attempting to do something nice for you or to help you in some way and you insult them for their efforts.

The qualifications you’re making shift your original argument. If someone is being nice to you, you should return the kindness in kind. So if someone makes you some terrible meatloaf, you should thank them for feeding you, not for making you the best meatloaf you’ve ever had. Telling them that is, frankly, radically unkind. It’s what an enemy would do. After all, if you saw your friend (let’s say he’s on morphine because of a recent operation) resting his hand on a hot stove burner, wouldn’t you yell at him to take it off? This is obviously not such a big deal, but the principle of similar. One should not encourage error.

Was Peter Satan? No. So, who was Christ speaking to? Was He speaking to Peter himself or to the one influencing Peter?

Irrelevant distinction. If you chastise someone’s action because you perceive it being influenced by Satan, does this make the action suddenly moral? What sense does that make?

I doubt very seriously whether our Lord resorted to name-calling.

Because he never called anyone hypocrites, for example, or other such names when appropriate.

I was once told by a very holy priest there is a thing called mental reservation…It means that a person will not tell you some information for a very good reason

This is a theological hypothesis, not a doctrine of the church. It strikes me as extremely deceitful and essentially makes it impossible to lie under any circumstance as long as you remember to do this.

“Where’s the bathroom?”
“Around the corner [by which I mean, the other direction entirely to everyone but you].”

or

“Which of these bottles is the medicine I need to live and which is poison?”
“Oh, that one is [but really, I meant the other one].”

The end result is the words that you speak to the person do not conform with reality, and your intention is to cause them to have a view of the situation that is untrue as you know it. In other words, identical to a lie in both intent, means, and ends. I don’t know about you, but if something looks like a rose, smells like a rose, has a tag on it saying “rose,” has a bunch of gardeners sitting around calling it a rose, and after testing we find out it has the same DNA as a rose… then it’s probably a rose.

 

[Tietjen]

To BlaineTog, Ron Conte, Verbum Caro, and LilyM:

To BlaineTog - I say that there are not too many people today who do not have voicemail, but I was thinking back to my childhood and the instructions that I was to follow when my parents were not home. Voicemail did not exist then, yet lying did, and if you say that it is sin today, it surely must have been a sin when I was a child. However, being sidetracked on voicemail was not my intent to begin with. I was simply using it as an example.

To Ron Conte - You seem as though you are very sure that lying is “intrinsically evil” and immoral in every instance. How very “black and white” your world must be. I truly envy you.

To Verbum Caro - I appreciate your arguments the best. They are charitable, well thought out, and intelligent. Having said that, I still am of the belief that the truth is not required when dealing with those who have no right to the information.

To LilyM - You have spirit and I appreciate your responses very much. Again, I do not agree with your view on this subject but I respect your take on the matter.

Now, I must take my leave from this thread so as not to continually restate my position repeatedly. I will, for the road, state my belief on the subject once more and the bid you adieu.

Lying is not lying when you give false information to an individual who has no right to the information being discussed. I do not believe it is a sin to misinform a suspect in a criminal investigation in order to obtain further information or a confession. Likewise, I do not believe that those who hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII were sinning if they misinformed the Nazis as to where the Jews might be hiding. I do not believe that it is intrinsically evil to misinform a criminal who is the subject of a sting or is being investigated by plain clothes officers.

I do believe it is a sin to lie to someone who has a right to know the information being discussed. But I draw the line as Judith did in the book of Judith chp 10, when it comes to truthfully communicating information to an individual who you know will use the information to do evil. Especially, when remaining silent (as a way to avoid making a false statement) will not stop the evil act from being perpetrated. God bless all.

 

[summasix]

Besides which, there’s no ‘tell the WHOLE truth’ requirement, except in sworn statements where you swear to do so or something. Certainly one mustn’t lie or intentionally mislead, but one is not obliged to tell the whole truth in every circumstance. Case in point - Abraham saying Sarah was his sister when she was only his half sister - God had no problems with Abraham not telling the WHOLE truth about that at all, the problem was his outright lying about her not being his wife when she was.

Abraham telling Sarah was his sister, when she was much more fully his wife in the practical sense, is deception, thus a lie.

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."280 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."281

However, Abraham uses the right to discretion to avoid an unfavorable situation.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.282

Thus in the same manner, according to the Catechism, witholding information from the Gestapo with a violent intent is not sinful, so long as excessive manipulation of the truth is not involved.