A question about lying to save lives

[duskyjewel]

I saw this quote on another thread:

I don’t think lying is any better, from a Catholic standpoint – I have learned through other threads here that the CCC is unequivocal in its condemnation of lying under any circumstance, even to save another person’s life; so doing so to salvage one’s image would be even less justifiable.

Of course, this poster is right. I myself have posted that Catechism quote on another thread.

But when I read this, a question popped into my head. What about righteous Gentiles, including Catholics, who saved Jews during WWII? Would they have had to lie about SOMETHING at SOME POINT? They probably had to lie often, well, and repeatedly in order to save the lives they did. I have not done any reading on the detailed history of all of it, but I would bet that even Pius XII, when helping Jews escape and hiding them in his summer palace, had to do some lying.

So, how do the two things square? If the Catechism says lying is never justified under any circumstances, using the “evil may not be done that good may come of it” argument, then how are the righteous Gentiles, and especially Catholics who risked their lives to save Jews, and probably had to lie to do it, righteous? (BTW, I know that term comes from Israel, that it is a declaration made by them upon a person.)

Is there something that mitigates the seemingly impervious disallowance of lying in the Catechism, when it concerns more serious moral issues?

 

[LilyM]

I saw this quote on another thread:

Of course, this poster is right. I myself have posted that Catechism quote on another thread.

But when I read this, a question popped into my head. What about righteous Gentiles, including Catholics, who saved Jews during WWII? Would they have had to lie about SOMETHING at SOME POINT? They probably had to lie often, well, and repeatedly in order to save the lives they did. I have not done any reading on the detailed history of all of it, but I would bet that even Pius XII, when helping Jews escape and hiding them in his summer palace, had to do some lying.

So, how do the two things square? If the Catechism says lying is never justified under any circumstances, using the “evil may not be done that good may come of it” argument, then how are the righteous Gentiles, and especially Catholics who risked their lives to save Jews, and probably had to lie to do it, righteous? (BTW, I know that term comes from Israel, that it is a declaration made by them upon a person.)

Is there something that mitigates the seemingly impervious disallowance of lying in the Catechism, when it concerns more serious moral issues?

Nothing changes the inherent objective sinfulness of lying. Jesus is absolute Truth, and never lied for any reason. If we would be perfect we must do the same. Where circumstances, such as hiding people from the Nazis, comes into it is that in particular cases they may remit all or some of the seriousness of the sin on a subjective, case-by-case individual level. The catechism indicates as much, that the nature of the truth offended and other factors will determine the seriousness of the sin.

It may be that for an individual to lie to save people from Nazis might be a venial rather than a mortal sin, for example. If the duress the Nazis put you under is strong enough it might remove the culpability entirely. If possible you’d be under obligation to resort to tactics short of outright lying - for example to use evasion (stay silent so they’ll think you’re deaf, or say something that’s not actually a lie like ‘you think I’d hide Jews in here? Seriously?’)

There are other things - such as a theory put forward by some theologians (but not all, and not official Church teaching) called ‘mental reservation’ whereby you’re only obliged to tell the truth to those who have a right to know it, and murderous Nazis would have no right to know. Bear in mind this is only a theory.

 

[VociMike]

The Catechism explicitly states that “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it” and even talks about using “discreet language” in such situations.

There is a common thread in all the commandments concerned with man’s interaction with man. The common thread is a differentiation between that which is just, lawful and that which is unjust, unlawful. Thus e.g. stealing is unjust taking of property while reposessing unpaid-for merchandise is a just taking of property. Murder is unjust taking of life while police may engage in a just taking of life.

It seems obvious that the same distinction should apply to lying. If one has a just or lawful right to the truth (including a lawful right based on natural law) then the lie is wrong. If one has no just or lawful right to the truth, and if simple silence will result in injury to the innocent, then the lie is not wrong. Thus it is not enough to refuse to answer when the Nazis ask if you’ve got Jews in your attic, because that will guarantee that they will search your attic and find those Jews. In that case it seems you are morally obligated to protect those people.

Here’s an interesting question. When you go away for a weekend, is it sinful to put some of your house lights on timers to “lie” to burglars and make them think you’re home?

 

[Caesar517]

Here is the relevant section of the Catechism.

Section III seems to condemn lying across the board, while section IV says that you are not required to reveal the truth in all situations.

It would seem that the CCC is suggesting that lying is intinsically evil, but maintaining silence is not.

Consider this situation, however:

If one has no just or lawful right to the truth, and if simple silence will result in injury to the innocent, then the lie is not wrong. Thus it is not enough to refuse to answer when the Nazis ask if you’ve got Jews in your attic, because that will guarantee that they will search your attic and find those Jews. In that case it seems you are morally obligated to protect those people.

My inclination is to say that this lie is morally justified.

 

[Tietjen]

I think that what Fr. Serpa has said concerning Lying is important.

Another apologist here on CA had this response.

 

[wjp984]

Here is my opinion.

If it is alright to kill in self defesne in order to save your own life or anothers, then it is alright to lie in self defense to save your own life or anothers as well.

To say otherwise does not make logical sense. Are you trying to say that it would be sinful to lie in self defense but not to supply guns to the Jews and get ready to go into combat in self defense after you tell the Nazis that there are Jews in the house? It’s you have to actually be killing to not be sinning and that does not make sense. If there is a non violent means of committing an otherwise sinful act in self defense it should be first used before violence.

 

[LilyM]

Here is my opinion.

If it is alright to kill in self defesne in order to save your own life or anothers, then it is alright to lie in self defense to save your own life or anothers as well.

To say otherwise does not make logical sense. Are you trying to say that it would be sinful to lie in self defense but not to supply guns to the Jews and get ready to go into combat in self defense after you tell the Nazis that there are Jews in the house? It’s you have to actually be killing to not be sinning and that does not make sense. If there is a non violent means of committing an otherwise sinful act in self defense it should be first used before violence.

Remember the means are often as important as the end when it comes to morality, and remember also that God doesn’t always think as we do in terms of what is moral.

For example if you’re starving it may be morally OK to steal what you need to survive. It would never, however, be morally OK to earn the money for what you need by prostitution or drug dealing. Even if you see them as being morally better than stealing, God doesn’t.

 

[BlaineTog]

Lying is never morally justifiable. You are allowed to not tell someone something, but there is a line between “not telling someone something” and “telling someone something which you know to be incorrect” that cannot ever be licitly crossed. Even if it’s to save your life or the lives of others.

The objection has been brought up, though, that if killing in self-defense is ok, then lying in self-defense would be ok as well. I don’t think this is true. Killing is physical violence, but lying is verbal (and, therefore, intellectual) violence. If you kill someone, you end their spiritual journey, which doesn’t actually affect any change in them, in a salvific sense, but lying by definition tries to skew that person’s view of the world, and since God is Truth, it necessarily pushes them away from him. That’s just my musings, though, hardly bulletproof.

The final word on the subject, though, as far as I’m concerned, is John 8:44 where Jesus says, in no uncertain terms, that all lies come from Satan, and Gen 3:1-4, in which the fall is only made possible by a lie. No amount of rationalization changes the fact that according to the Bible, to lie is to participate actively in the work of Lucifer.

 

[summasix]

The Eighth Commandment states:

“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” (Emphasis mine).

Would you say misleading the Gestapo about Jews is harming the Gestapo, Hitler, the Aryan race, the Jews, or anyone? I certainly don’t.

 

[BlaineTog]

The Eighth Commandment states:

“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” (Emphasis mine).

Would you say misleading the Gestapo about Jews is harming the Gestapo, Hitler, the Aryan race, the Jews, or anyone? I certainly don’t.

You have painted a picture of the world that is, in some, small way, not true. This harms them. Though even if it didn’t, this would only be a problem in my attempt to understand the immorality of lying, not the factuality of it.

 

[Tietjen]

Lying is never morally justifiable. You are allowed to not tell someone something, but there is a line between “not telling someone something” and “telling someone something which you know to be incorrect” that cannot ever be licitly crossed. Even if it’s to save your life or the lives of others.

The objection has been brought up, though, that if killing in self-defense is ok, then lying in self-defense would be ok as well. I don’t think this is true. Killing is physical violence, but lying is verbal (and, therefore, intellectual) violence. If you kill someone, you end their spiritual journey, which doesn’t actually affect any change in them, in a salvific sense, but lying by definition tries to skew that person’s view of the world, and since God is Truth, it necessarily pushes them away from him. That’s just my musings, though, hardly bulletproof.

The final word on the subject, though, as far as I’m concerned, is John 8:44 where Jesus says, in no uncertain terms, that all lies come from Satan, and Gen 3:1-4, in which the fall is only made possible by a lie. No amount of rationalization changes the fact that according to the Bible, to lie is to participate actively in the work of Lucifer.

Well, I believe that perhaps there is more to it than that. If you read the book of Judith, you’ll find that she decieved (with lies) Holofernes, the General of the Assyrians. After lying to him she cut his head off and thus saved Israel. She was a prophet of God and God was with her while she did what she had to do to save her people. Look especially at chapter 10. God bless.

 

[BlaineTog]

Well, I believe that perhaps there is more to it than that. If you read the book of Judith, you’ll find that she decieved (with lies) Holofernes, the General of the Assyrians. After lying to him she cut his head off and thus saved Israel. She was a prophet of God and God was with her while she did what she had to do to save her people. Look especially at chapter 10. God bless.

A careful read shows that she isn’t glorified for the lying, though, but in spite of it. Trust me, I’ve heard this objection before. NewAdvent’s page with this chapter, for example, talks about this, ie, “not all that is in Scripture is approved of by scripture, even when done by prophets and saints.”

 

[Caesar517]

…lying by definition tries to skew that person’s view of the world, and since God is Truth, it necessarily pushes them away from him.

You say that lying to the Nazi pushes him away from God. Don’t you think it would be pushing a Nazi very far away from God to alow him to murder the Jews your neighbor is hiding? There are some situations where simple silence is the same as telling the truth.

 

[Tietjen]

A careful read shows that she isn’t glorified for the lying, though, but in spite of it. Trust me, I’ve heard this objection before. NewAdvent’s page with this chapter, for example, talks about this, ie, “not all that is in Scripture is approved of by scripture, even when done by prophets and saints.”

Agreed, but I believe that there are cases where lying is a mortal sin, some cases where it is a venial sin, and in some cases it isn’t a sin. If mortal sin separates us from God, then at the very least Judith’s lying wasn’t mortal. We know this because God was with her, in order that she would accomplish the mission of killing Holofernes and escaping the enemy’s encampment. This along with another Fr. Serpa response on the subject, seems to indicate that there are times when lying is not sinful. As Fr. Serpa appears to be saying, if someone has no right to the information in question, then perhaps, in SOME cases, lying maybe acceptable.

 

[puzzleannie]

speaking an untruth is a lie and a sin only if told to someone who has a right to know. If my child tells a caller, “Mommy can’t come to the phone right now.” that is not a lie, because the caller has no right to know where I am or what I am doing. Telling the Nazi soldiers no one was in the house was not a lie, because they had no right to know the whereabouts of the hidden Jews, and certainly no right to apprehend them. The commandment is against bearing false witness against my neighbor. Who is my neighbor? the Jew in peril is my neighbor. To give him up to his persecutors would definitely be a false witness against him since it would be betraying the fundamental truth of my faith.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

speaking an untruth is a lie and a sin only if told to someone who has a right to know.

But puzzleannie, that definition doesn’t seem to hold water in an absolute sense. For instance you don’t have “the right” to know how old I am, do you? – but that wouldn’t seem to give me license to tell you that I am 14 or 78, would it?

VC

 

[Tietjen]

speaking an untruth is a lie and a sin only if told to someone who has a right to know. If my child tells a caller, “Mommy can’t come to the phone right now.” that is not a lie, because the caller has no right to know where I am or what I am doing. Telling the Nazi soldiers no one was in the house was not a lie, because they had no right to know the whereabouts of the hidden Jews, and certainly no right to apprehend them. The commandment is against bearing false witness against my neighbor. Who is my neighbor? the Jew in peril is my neighbor. To give him up to his persecutors would definitely be a false witness against him since it would be betraying the fundamental truth of my faith.

Precisely.

 

[BlaineTog]

You say that lying to the Nazi pushes him away from God. Don’t you think it would be pushing a Nazi very far away from God to alow him to murder the Jews your neighbor is hiding? There are some situations where simple silence is the same as telling the truth.

And that’s unfortunate, but beside the point. You may never perform an evil action so as to prevent an evil action, not ever.

Agreed, but I believe that there are cases where lying is a mortal sin, some cases where it is a venial sin, and in some cases it isn’t a sin.

If lies are from Satan, then they are, by definition, sinful. They may be venially sinful, but that doesn’t mean you should ever do them for any reason.

And again, there is a line between saying nothing and letting them draw their own conclusions, and saying something with the intention of making them draw false conclusions.

 

[Caesar517]

And that’s unfortunate, but beside the point. You may never perform an evil action so as to prevent an evil action, not ever.

I didn’t mean to imply that.

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

 

[puzzleannie]

But puzzleannie, that definition doesn’t seem to hold water in an absolute sense. For instance you don’t have “the right” to know how old I am, do you? – but that wouldn’t seem to give me license to tell you that I am 14 or 78, would it?

VC

yes it would, I don’t have to tell you how old I am because you have no right to know–if you were the deputy registrar for auto licenses, that would be another story. If someone asks me a personal question I can refuse to answer, or give a frivolous or false answer and it is not a lie, in the sense of a sin. Lying to save some one is not an evil action and is not even a lie, because if the obvious intent of the person asking the question is evil they, by definition, have no right to the information.