Doing evil so good may come?

[mpartyka]

I was reading a book called “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers” which collects famous quotes and anecdotes concerning 4th- and 5th-century Christian monks, and I came across this:

One day Abba Agathon questioned Abba Alonius saying, “How can I control my tongue so as to tell no more lies?” And Abba Alonius said to him, “If you do not lie, you prepare many sins for yourself.” “How is that?” said he. The old man said to him, “Suppose two men committed a murder before your eyes, and one of them fled to your cell. The magistrate, seeking him, asks you, ‘Have you seen the murderer?’ If you do not lie, you will deliver that man to death. It is better for you to abandon him unconditionally to God, for He knows all things.”

This saying struck me as rather odd, since it implied that lying to save a murderer from the judgment of the rightful authorities was commendable, which would be in opposition, I would think, to Paul’s saying in Romans 3:8 that those who say, “Let us do evil that good may result,” deserve condemnation rather than commendation.

But it also occurred to me to wonder, “What if, instead of a murderer, the person seeking refuge in the monk’s cell were a Jew hiding from the Nazis, and it were a Nazi magistrate asking the monk, ‘Have you seen the Jew?’” Here we have another case where, in order to do good – a much clearer good than protecting a murderer from just punishment – the monk must lie or else hand over the refugee to death.

In either case, what would Catholic teaching say that the monk should do? What concerns me mainly is the idea of whether it is okay to sin, to whatever degree, in order to prevent someone’s death (since it appears to be the death of the murderer about which the monk is most concerned, just as it would be the death of the Jew about which the monk would be concerned under the Nazi scenario). Is it okay to sin (lie, cheat, steal, etc.) in order to prevent another person’s death – the lesser evil being performed for the sake of the greater good?

 

[devoutchristian]

One should say something which tricks the Nazi without lying.

 

[JRKH]

I would suggest being guided by the Catechism rather than a book of “quotes and anecdotes”.

Peace
James

 

[Windmill]

Simple answer to this:

Lying is withholding information from a person that they have a right to.

In the case of the Nazi, they have no right to apprehend the Jew if his only “crime” is being a Jew. You are under no obligation to tell him what he requests.

In the case of the criminal, the Monk should tell the authorities and let justice play out in the legal system. Even if the criminal is sentenced to death, he is still not deprived of his soul and may actually win it back from eternal damnation with heartfelt repentance prior to his execution. In fact, Thomas Aquinas states that, when faced with one’s imminent demise, it tends to motivate the person to “get right with God.”

 

[vames]

One should say something which tricks the Nazi without lying.

Oh, sure, let’s concoct an elaborate plan in a matter of seconds, just to save our precious soul, so gravely endangered from this horrific sin of lying! Any 8-year old child who has an abusive father instinctively knows that is a good thing to lie if his father asks him where the mother is, knowing that the father wants to beat up the mother.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh, sure, let’s concoct an elaborate plan in a matter of seconds, just to save our precious soul, so gravely endangered from this horrific sin of lying! Any 8-year old child who has an abusive father instinctively knows that is a good thing to lie if his father asks him where the mother is, knowing that the father wants to beat up the mother.

His erroneous conscience – that it is a “good thing” to lie is just that “an erroneous conscience”. He can be acting well following his erroneous conscience – doing what he thinks then is good to do. But such does not make “lying” into an objectively good act.

It is not a “good thing to lie”.

The fact that a person (lets take an adult here) may fail to find the “good way” to use discreet language etc to avoid lying – and end up saying a lie to a Nazi – such does not make the lie – to be a “good”.

One might fail in such a situation --indeed we fail daily in various smaller matters for which we pray “forgive us our trespasses” (let us work on such!) --it can be understandable of course that one in such a situation will not find the right way and fail here (A small sin that is so mitigated that a glance at God forgives it…but still objectively remaining a lie). Humanly understandable yes - but still not “objectively good” --still remains a lie. I imagine many such venial failings by good persons happened during the war. But such lack of finding the good way does not make lying into a “good”.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

 

[Walcot]

You say…I imagine many such venial failings by good persons happened during the war…

That’s what war is all about isn’t it? Innocent people killing( let alone lying to) innocent people on the other side? Not all German soldiers were Nazis. Unless one is a pacifist, then one must believe in the concept of ‘sinning’ for the greater good.

 

[Bookcat]

Unless one is a pacifist, then one must believe in the concept of ‘sinning’ for the greater good.

Actually no - one must not.

 

[MilesVitae]

In either case, what would Catholic teaching say that the monk should do? What concerns me mainly is the idea of whether it is okay to sin, to whatever degree, in order to prevent someone’s death (since it appears to be the death of the murderer about which the monk is most concerned, just as it would be the death of the Jew about which the monk would be concerned under the Nazi scenario). Is it okay to sin (lie, cheat, steal, etc.) in order to prevent another person’s death – the lesser evil being performed for the sake of the greater good?

It is never permissible to sin in order to obtain some good (sin, by definition, is not permissible).

Some actions are immoral by their very nature - they are intrinsically morally disordered. A good intent cannot correct the fact of the defectiveness of the act. The situation you bring up has always troubled me - but, I’ve never seen an argument which has convinced me that a statement of blatant falsehood would be anything other than a sin of lying in that case.

Something important to keep in mind, though, in light of the above. Although we can never do something intrinsically immoral to obtain a good, we can, in some cases, do something which will have a negative consequence in addition to the good consequence we are seeking - it’s called the principle of double effect."
Also, while this isn’t relevant to the question of lying, you mentioned stealing briefly. Taking what another has is not always the sin of theft - for instance, one who needs food in order not to starve can (under proper circumstances) take food from those who have enough, even without their consent.

 

[Walcot]

Actually no - one must not.

Well then, you must be a pacifist…which is OK by me…for to take part in any conflict you must sin. You must know that there will always be what is euphemistically called ‘collateral damage’ in any conflict…ie. when you join a conflict you know you will be part of the killing of innocent people who just get in the way. I heard a statistic this morning - By the 19th century casualties in wars were 90% soldiers, 10% civilian. By the end of the 20th century that was reversed.
It doesn’t mean that pre-20th century wars were more ‘excusable’ tho’…the soldiers were, after all, just canon-fodder for the powers that were.

 

[Walcot]

It is never permissible to sin in order to obtain some good (sin, by definition, is not permissible).

Some actions are immoral by their very nature - they are intrinsically morally disordered. A good intent cannot correct the fact of the defectiveness of the act. The situation you bring up has always troubled me - but, I’ve never seen an argument which has convinced me that a statement of blatant falsehood would be anything other than a sin of lying in that case.

Something important to keep in mind, though, in light of the above. Although we can never do something intrinsically immoral to obtain a good, we can, in some cases, do something which will have a negative consequence in addition to the good consequence we are seeking - it’s called the principle of double effect."
Also, while this isn’t relevant to the question of lying, you mentioned stealing briefly. Taking what another has is not always the sin of theft - for instance, one who needs food in order not to starve can (under proper circumstances) take food from those who have enough, even without their consent.

Then why are Catholics not pacifists?

 

[JRKH]

Something that I never see brought up in these discussions is a willingness to accept the consequences of committing a sinful act for some good purpose.
What I see is that on one side the Church teaches (rightly) that one may not commit an evil in order to attain some greater good. I say that she rightly teaches this because of the slippery slope that any other teaching will become…

But consider this…What of the person who freely and knowingly commits an evil for some greater good and is willing to accept the eternal consequences of that act? The one who dies and stands before God - confronted with this sin and says to God…
“Lord, I know what I did was wrong but I saw no alternative and in the same situation I would probably do so again. I know that for this I deserve hell so do with me what you will.”
Now - standing before God, the heart is laid bare…there is no guile or anything hidden…This is how the person believes…Understanding the act and the consequences and willing to accept those consequences…
I wonder what our just and merciful Lord will say?

I think this is an aspect we should ALL consider in these matters. The Church cannot say that we are allowed to sin in order to avoid a greater sin…But Christ has told us too that no greater Love has a man than to lay down his life for his neighbor. Would, should, could that love and that laying down life extend to “eternal life”?

Personally I am willing to fully accept what the Church teaches on this subject. I am also willing to accept that there are times when there is just no good alternative - and it is in those times that we as Disciples of Christ must be willing to lay it all on the line…even our own eternal destiny…for the Love of our neighbor. To do so freely and to be willing to accept the consequences - whatever that might be.

Peace
James

 

[Farien]

Lying is withholding information from a person that they have a right to.

The mighty “re-definition” raises its ugly head again. Lying is intentionally and knowingly telling something that is not true.

In certain cases it can be justified. For example in the case of a Nazi inquiring about Jews. It is still a lie since you told something that is not true, but it is justifiable. Or when you lie to your children asserting that Santa Claus brings them christmas presents. Or when you tell your child that the needle will not hurt. All lies… but nothing wrong with them.

It is ridicuous and hypocritical to redefine something just to stay within the boundaries of a dogma.

 

[JRKH]

The mighty “re-definition” raises its ugly head again. Lying is intentionally and knowingly telling something that is not true.

In certain cases it can be justified. For example in the case of a Nazi inquiring about Jews. It is still a lie since you told something that is not true, but it is justifiable. Or when you lie to your children asserting that Santa Claus brings them christmas presents. Or when you tell your child that the needle will not hurt. All lies… but nothing wrong with them.

It is ridicuous and hypocritical to redefine something just to stay within the boundaries of a dogma.

It’s interesting that there is actually no commandment that is a blanket prohibition against saying something that is not true…
The commandment - as written by the Hand of God at Sinai - is this…
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Ex 20:16; cf. Deut 5:20 RSV)
The Church has provided a great deal of teaching based off of this in the Catechism section dealing with this command.
But the bottom line must be that, since All of the Law is based on the two great commands of Love God and Love neighbor (Mt 22:36-40), any particular situation or circumstance must be the one that is most loving…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

In certain cases it can be justified. For example in the case of a Nazi inquiring about Jews. It is still a lie since you told something that is not true, but it is justifiable.

(I understand your not a Catholic…)

But it is important to say …no.

Not “justifiable”.

Lying by its nature is is not good (see Catechism). It is not justifiable.

The end does NOT “justify” the means. (See Catechism)

As to Nazi’s at the door see my post above.

 

[Shin]

I was reading a book called “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers” which collects famous quotes and anecdotes concerning 4th- and 5th-century Christian monks

The sayings of the Desert Fathers are some of the most important and reverenced records in Christian history.

Congratulations on finding a portion of them. Deo gratias.

They’re very deep and good food for meditation.

 

[JRKH]

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"…

Nazi at the door and Jew in the cellar…

Nazi - “Are you harboring Jews?”

Who is my neighbor? What is my witness? What response fits best with the Command to Love others as I love myself (the basis for the Law)?
In what way does one most fully express their Love and discipleship?

Two possible responses…“Not I am not harboring Jews” or “yes I am harboring Jews”.
Which of these responses is truly "bearing false witness against my neighbor???

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If I may insert an additional thought here…The Church has a doctrine relating to what constitutes a “just war”. She holds this doctrine even thought there are passages in Scripture that seem to indicate we should never use violence…I trust in this that the Church as this matter correct and that a “Just war” is one that is basically forced on us and there is simply no other alternative.

So - in the extreme case - so often brought up - of “hiding Jews” may we not invoke the principles of “Just War” - that we are forced into this position and there is no other viable alternative than to use the weapons available to us (in this case lying) for the purpose of the legitimate defense of others?

Haven’t really explored this line of reasoning…too far but I think it worth considering…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"…

Nazi at the door and Jew in the cellar…

Nazi - “Are you harboring Jews?”

Who is my neighbor? What is my witness? What response fits best with the Command to Love others as I love myself (the basis for the Law)?
In what way does one most fully express their Love and discipleship?

Two possible responses…“Not I am not harboring Jews” or “yes I am harboring Jews”.
Which of these responses is truly "bearing false witness against my neighbor???

Peace
James

The above sets up an approach that does not contain the right understanding of the aspects involved nor the terms. And sets up a false choice.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#II

 

[Bookcat]

Faced with the Nazi at the door --yes it may happen that someone may via an erroneous conscience believe that lying in such a case is good is the “act of love” one is to do. But such would be an understandable but incorrect conclusion.

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 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."282

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**…

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

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.283

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…or “discreet language”.

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin (if there is culpability at all)…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)

Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie (be it ever so slight). Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie (circumstances cannot justify -see CCC). It remains a lie. A sin. . But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness. Something that ought not have happened. One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…

(PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)