Are certain people allowed to lie?

[Kaben123]

Are they? It seems that politicans, people working in agencies such as the CIA, the military etc. would be unable to do their jobs properly without some kind of deception. How would you win a war without deception? It would be very difficult today.

 

[animalis]

Let see if this makes any sense. You brought up a modern case.

The Catechism teaches, “Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC 1789) And so as far as every agent in the world, a principle that produces an effect. There is a uncaused cause, namely the Blessed Trinity, that has dominion with all in all. God the Father, is the efficient cause of all things, God the Son, is the exemplar cause of all things, and God the Holy Spirit, is the ultimate cause of all things. (cf. Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus, 3) That is all I will say to stay certain on the truth of God.

If we conform ourselves to this cause in unity, it will win out, as S. Jude says to our present moment, “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting.” (Jude 21) That is the whole point of faith, a prudent abandonment of soul and its powers to the condition of trust. This is the mode of true life.

No matter what profession, we all need the ultimate, exemplar, and efficient truth.

 

[Kaben123]

Let see if this makes any sense. You brought up a modern case.

The Catechism teaches, “Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC 1789) And so as far as every agent in the world, a principle that produces an effect. There is a uncaused cause, namely the Blessed Trinity, that has dominion with all in all. God the Father, is the efficient cause of all things, God the Son, is the exemplar cause of all things, and God the Holy Spirit, is the ultimate cause of all things. (cf. Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus, 3) That is all I will say to stay certain on the truth of God.

If we conform ourselves to this cause in unity, it will win out, as S. Jude says to our present moment, “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting.” (Jude 21) That is the whole point of faith, a prudent abandonment of soul and its powers to the condition of trust. This is the mode of true life.

No matter what profession, we all need the ultimate, exemplar, and efficient truth.

Thank you!

 

[djames99]

A good question. I would not say that by right of office a person can obtain the right to lie, but in circumstance. It may be necessary to lie to prevent dishonor to our Lord, to prevent harm to another, and for many other reasons. St. Augustine’s book De Mendacio is an excellent guide on this topic:

#11 (www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm)

…Or when by aid of a lie he wishes to make a person fit for gaining the truth, he bars the approach to truth, for by wishing when he lies to be accommodating, it comes to pass that when he speaks the truth, he cannot be depended upon. Wherefore, either we must not believe good men, or we must believe those whom we think obliged sometimes to tell a lie, or we must not believe that good men sometimes tell lies: of these three the first is pernicious, the second foolish; it remains therefore that good men should never tell lies.

Off hand, to keep within the context of which you present, a close case for lies involving office is the sentencing process of nations.

For example, God wishes his people and nations to be receptive to the command for criminals to settle accounts, as well as the importance of discretion. (Mathew 5,23-25 - 18,15). God also wants us to apply punishment in measure and to ensure a view to closure always plays a part in the overall process. (2 Cor 2,6)

Typically the person assigned such a task is the judge, who represents the nation. The lie occurs at sentencing where the defendant is told(proclaimed) his sentence. Contrary to the spirit of Mathew, the nation legislates that it is not a requirement that all controlled sentencing is proclaimed. However, it is the duty to God by nations to do so. As a result, the judge follows suit to obey and therefore never tells the offender at trial all that will befall him. He thinks he is doing his duty to follow orders, but in fact his duty is to God first, and in conscientious objection refuse to partially proclaim sentencing.

So we have an example where the lies of one entity taints the duty of another. We note the common good which is restrained in 2 Cor 2, 6 but is ignored.

Satan now is free to take is turn. The ruse to the eyes of the world is that the crime of stealing pencils merits the punishment of 50$ (proclaimed sentence). The truth is the judge knew the offender would be further restricted in military enlistment,government jobs and in many other controlled areas of freedom and rights. The sin compounds further in that pardons which are to be unconditional, finds itself at odds with the command for closure 2Cor 2,6 because the offender must initiate it. Another compounding effect, and probably the original intent of the nation’s legislation to bury proclamation of sentencing is the lie to present a fair picture of justice to those new citizens who seek a nation, and to the United Nations. To them they only see the fairness of the 50$ sentencing.

The result is while God waits for the victim/judge to do his part at reconciliation, the offender goes to the next world still waiting. God is not pleased.

Hope this helps.

In closing we are to discern realistically the good effect of not telling the truth. There must be no other means to achieve the good without lying.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Lying is intrinsically disordered, in other words it is intrinsically evil.

CCC 1753 “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.”

Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.

“a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 78.)

“The whole tradition of the Church has lived and does live on the conviction” that “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.” (Pope John Paul II, Speeches, To participants of the International Congress on Moral Theology. April 10, 1986.)

So lying cannot be justified by the role or job of anyone. For example, an undercover police officer cannot justify lying. Neither is lying justified to save innocent persons from death at the hands of murders. (St. Augustine, on lying, n. 22).

 

[Timothysis]

So lying cannot be justified by the role or job of anyone. For example, an undercover police officer cannot justify lying. Neither is lying justified to save innocent persons from death at the hands of murders. (St. Augustine, on lying, n. 22).

You must be very careful here. Pope Pius XII ordered priests and religious to do all they could to protect Jews from arrest during World War II. The future Pope John XXIII was printing fraudulent birth certificates in a basement in Constantinople in order to protect Jews from arrest. St. Maximilian Kolbe ordered his brothers to disguise themselves as something that they were not, to present themselves with a false identity to flee from arrest.

It is not a lie to protect an innocent person from those who act outside of the law and morality. In such circumstances it is necessary to let the greater good prevail; and this has nothing to do with “*committing evil so that good may come of it.” * By providing information that allows someone to commit an evil act, YOU become an accomplice and share moral culpability for it.

If you were walking down the street and an obvious pregnant woman stopped you and asked, "do you know of an abortion clinic near here?, knowing good and well that there is one just around the corner, what would you say? Would you rather “lie” or be an accomplice to an intrinsically evil act?

 

[Ron_Conte]

You must be very careful here. Pope Pius XII ordered priests and religious to do all they could to protect Jews from arrest during World War II. The future Pope John XXIII was printing fraudulent birth certificates in a basement in Constantinople in order to protect Jews from arrest. St. Maximilian Kolbe ordered his brothers to disguise themselves as something that they were not, to present themselves with a false identity to flee from arrest.

It is not a lie to protect an innocent person from those who act outside of the law and morality. In such circumstances it is necessary to let the greater good prevail; and this has nothing to do with “*committing evil so that good may come of it.” * By providing information that allows someone to commit an evil act, YOU become an accomplice and share moral culpability for it.

If you were walking down the street and an obvious pregnant woman stopped you and asked, "do you know of an abortion clinic near here?, knowing good and well that there is one just around the corner, what would you say? Would you rather “lie” or be an accomplice to an intrinsically evil act?

The Magisterium infallibly teaches that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral, regardless of intention (the purpose for which the act is chosen) and circumstances (including consequences). Neither a good intention, nor a good consequence can justify the deliberate choice of an intrinsically evil act.

The definition of lying is based on the moral object: to deliberately assert a falsehood or deny a truth. The purpose of protecting an innocent person does not turn a lie into a moral act. Saint Augustine was very clear on this point.

One always has the option of remaining silent, if a disclosure would do more harm than good. In some circumstances, one may use mental reservation. But lying is intrinsically disordered, and therefore always wrong to deliberately choose.

 

[Timothysis]

The Magisterium infallibly teaches that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral, regardless of intention (the purpose for which the act is chosen) and circumstances (including consequences). Neither a good intention, nor a good consequence can justify the deliberate choice of an intrinsically evil act.

It is not an intrinsically evil act to do the right thing. By your statement above, you condemn Pope Piux XII, Pope John XXIII and St. Maximilian Kolbe. How do you defend that? I defend it by stating that telling an untruth to those who have no right to the truth or who will do evil with knowledge of the truth is not a lie.

The definition of lying is based on the moral object: to deliberately assert a falsehood or deny a truth. The purpose of protecting an innocent person does not turn a lie into a moral act. Saint Augustine was very clear on this point.

Fine and dandy , but for every theologian who sides with Augustine’s stance, there is another who takes the opposite side. Besides, “lying” is more than just saying something that isn’t technically true. If that were the case, then we are ALL liars.

“There is some difference of opinion among the Fathers of the Christian Church. Origen quotes Plato and approves of his doctrine on this point (Stromata, VI). He says that a man who is under the necessity of lying should diligently consider the matter so as not to exceed. He should gulp the lie as a sick man does his medicine. He should be guided by the example of Judith, Esther, and Jacob. If he exceed, he will be judged the enemy of Him who said, “I am the Truth.” St. John Chrysostom held that it is lawful to deceive others for their benefit, and Cassian taught that we may sometimes lie as we take medicine, driven to it by sheer necessity.”

One always has the option of remaining silent, if a disclosure would do more harm than good. In some circumstances, one may use mental reservation. But lying is intrinsically disordered, and therefore always wrong to deliberately choose.

So it is better to allow an injustice than to admit a “lie?”

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is not an intrinsically evil act to do the right thing. By your statement above, you condemn Pope Piux XII, Pope John XXIII and St. Maximilian Kolbe. How do you defend that? I defend it by stating that telling an untruth to those who have no right to the truth or who will do evil with knowledge of the truth is not a lie.

Lying in difficult circumstances, with a good intention, is generally only a venial sin. It certainly is possible that a Pope or a Saint committed a venial sin. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that every example you cite is a lie, and not a case of mental reservation.

In any case, the Magisterium does teach that lying is wrong by its very nature, in other words, it is an intrinsically evil type of act. If you can find a Saint who ever once told a lie, the teaching remains unchanged. Lying is inherently wrong.

It is not correct to say that the deliberate assertion of a falsehood is still not a lie if the person has no right to the truth. The CCC was corrected to change this assertion about lying.

Veritatis Splendor is very clear that every intrinsically evil act is immoral due to an evil moral object, regardless of intention (e.g. intending to deceive) or circumstances (e.g. whether or not a person has a right to the truth). So the deliberate assertion of a falsehood, i.e. denying a truth or affirming a falsehood, is inherently immoral.

God is Truth. And so all lies offend Him.

Pope John Paul II: In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture… If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person… Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice. (VS 81)