Encourage lying?

[StJudeprayforme]

and the nazis know that any Catholic who equivocates or remains silent is either hiding Jews or knows they are hiding in the neighborhood because they’re not stupid and don’t fall for jedi mind tricks. so they tear apart the neighbor’s house where they were hiding, and they all are shot, as well as the neighbor, who was a good Lutheran who doesn’t read Augustine. congrats, the hypothetical informer saved his soul.

did he tell the Jews or his neighbor he wouldn’t lie for them? does this even make a difference?

It wouldn’t be an informer since he didn’t tell. Your brilliant Nazi would have figured it out on his own accord, and yes, the person who did not lie would not have committed a sin. It is better that a man should die than that he should commit the smallest of venial sins, because when we understand what sin is, a turning away from God, who is all good, we recognize with St. Alphonsus Ligouri that even the most meritorious action that we can preform in this life will not outweigh the evil done by the smallest of venial sins. This is why the gift of Christ on the cross is so marvelous and truly speaks to the love of God.

 

[Fairwinds]

…
So yes, if we believe Augustine on this matter, God would say “Good job, you didn’t lie.”

Here is the link to De mendacio if you are interested (different than the one above): newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm

not interested. at one point, I wanted to know your reasoning given this set of facts, I’ve given up on that. I’m not going to argue by authority as the CCC is clear for me on this point.

personally, I think that the nazi collaborator will have some explaining to do to God and that citing Augustine isn’t going to cut it.

the deaths of the informer’s neighbor and the Jews he was hiding.are inconsequential so long as the collaborator doesn’t “lie” does that about sum up the facts?

I’ll give you this much, you’re honest enough to openly accept the deaths of innocent victims and their protector as a price to pay for your telling the truth. most of the time, I see a lot of dancing around, special pleading, hand wave arguments, and clever ways of pulling another one over on Major Hochstetter.

the only problem I have with your position is that the victims didn’t have a say in their fate, if they’d know you’d roll over so easily, they might have stayed on the run, looking for a safer place to hide.

 

[Fairwinds]

… It is better that a man should die than that he should commit the smallest of venial sins,…

who dies are the hunted Jews and their Lutheran protector, it is not the collaborator who is at risk. he’ll be a treasured asset to the nazis as they comb the neighborhood.

did the collaborator at least tell the neighbor that he’d roll?

 

[nodito]

Fairwinds, if I had my wits about me, I could imagine a “discrete language” conversation going something like this:

Nazi: Are there Jews here?
Me, suprised: I beg your pardon?
Nazi: Are you hiding Jews here?
Me: Sir, everyone knows that hiding fugutives would mean death. I have young children. Why would I risk their lives or mine to hide Jews in this house?
Nazi: We’ve heard rumors there are Jews hiding in this neighborhood. We’d like to search your house.
Me: You may search if you wish, but I believe you will be disappointed.

No lies. Or would you expect them to just turn away at the door if you said, “No Jews here”?

And if I wasn’t able to be so quick on my feet, I might lie, but it would be wrong and I’d have to trust that God in His mercy could forgive me for lying out of fear.

 

[Fairwinds]

Fairwinds, if I had my wits about me, I could imagine a “discrete language” conversation going something like this:

Nazi: Are there Jews here?
Me, suprised: I beg your pardon?
Nazi: Are you hiding Jews here?
Me: Sir, everyone knows that hiding fugutives would mean death. I have young children. Why would I risk their lives or mine to hide Jews in this house?
Nazi: We’ve heard rumors there are Jews hiding in this neighborhood. We’d like to search your house.
Me: You may search if you wish, but I believe you will be disappointed.

No lies. Or would you expect them to just turn away at the door if you said, “No Jews here”?

And if I wasn’t able to be so quick on my feet, I might lie, but it would be wrong and I’d have to trust that God in His mercy could forgive me for lying out of fear.

I’d shoot the hypothetical script writer, on general principles.

you could read historical accounts of how Catholics, other Christians and even atheists successfully hid Jews when the nazis came looking. I’m not sure you’ll find any where Jews were given up for the reasons we’re discussing.

the nazis wouldn’t ask, I’m sure they’d tear into any place they thought was sheltering them, and the interrogation might not be polite. I’d instruct my investigators to be aware that word games or less than direct answers like the script above means you’ve found Jews. because this isn’t Hogan’s Heroes.

I think at this point one has to trust God and security measures, or be prepared to die a martyr’s death. or watch family be martyred. that’s why its important that everyone be on board with the plan, or don’t hide Jews.

 

[Fairwinds]

Augustine and the Useful Lie – Old Testament Examples of Lying

God-approved lies.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Augustine and the Useful Lie – Old Testament Examples of Lying

God-approved lies.

That post is honestly hilarious. Aquinas addresses the issue of the midwives in the Summa.
Summa Theologica 110.3:

Objection 2. Further, no one is rewarded by God for sin. But the midwives of Egypt were rewarded by God for a lie, for it is stated that “God built them houses” (Exodus 1:21). Therefore a lie is not a sin.

…]

**Reply to Objection 2. **The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

Of all the examples that the article you posted give, this one is the most like the Nazi example. Surely the Pharaoh would have had as little a right to the truth as the Nazis, but Aquinas still considers the midwives statement to be a lie, and thus sinful, lacking any merit.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Also, Aquinas directly addresses the question at hand:
Summa Theologica 110.3:

Objection 4. Further, one ought to choose the lesser evil in order to avoid the greater: even so a physician cuts off a limb, lest the whole body perish. Yet less harm is done by raising a false opinion in a person’s mind, than by someone slaying or being slain. **Therefore a man may lawfully lie, to save another from committing murder, or another from being killed.
**
…]

Reply to Objection 4. A lie is sinful not only because it injures one’s neighbor, but also on account of its inordinateness, as stated above in this Article. Now it is not allowed to make use of anything inordinate in order to ward off injury or defects from another: as neither is it lawful to steal in order to give an alms, except perhaps in a case of necessity when all things are common. Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x).

Aquinas would seem to share my reading of the “right to truth” passage of the CCC which you cited. This is nice because it does not create a conflict in the Catechism, where the definition of lying in one paragraph is contradicted by another paragraph, as your reading would do.

As I have been saying all along, we must read the Catechism within the context of the moral tradition of the Church and within itself, not picking single lines to make points that they don’t actually make. The paragraph you cite mentions silences and desecrate language two sentences before the “right to the truth” sentence. It also says “to lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error” and “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” To read it in the context of what came before, and what came after in “Veritatis Splendor”, where the idea that an intrinsically evil act could be made good by circumstance is condemned, one also avoids the trap of consequentialism, which is a moral theory that is condemned by the Church, and is utterly incompatible with Catholic thought.

 

[Fairwinds]

That post is honestly hilarious. Aquinas addresses the issue of the midwives in the Summa.

Of all the examples that the article you posted give, this one is the most like the Nazi example. Surely the Pharaoh would have had as little a right to the truth as the Nazis, but Aquinas still considers the midwives statement to be a lie, and thus sinful, lacking any merit.

I’m going to use “lie” with scare quotes because we can’t agree on a definition. the least common definition is a falsehood of some kind. I believe that not all false statements are lies condemned by the CCC.

decisions resulting in the murder of innocent people who aren’t connected to the person and who didn’t consent to, or even approve of his scruples (denying them an opportunity to seek safety elsewhere), I will always find repulsive and unChristian, Aquinas and Thomas notwithstanding. its self-centered and morally bankrupt, in a disgusting way … “look at me, I didn’t ‘lie’ – it hurt me more than it hurt them, and I’m sad that dozens of people were murdered because of my complicity, but that’s what God wanted of me.”

we’re at an impasse. you believe that X should give up his neighbor and the escape line and the Jews the neighbor is sheltering, resulting in their deaths and likely other deaths as well when that network gets rolled up, rather than mislead the nazis in what you consider a lie. and that God will tell you you dun good. if this conduct feels morally correct to anyone, God help all of us.

you can quote and interpret Augustine, Aquinas and a dozen other dudes, but your take is a total fail by any natural interpretation of Christian morality. until the CCC says in unambiguous words, give up the Jews instead of misleading the nazis, because God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, prefers indirect collaboration with evil and the deaths of innocent people to a “lie”.

in fact, try not quoting either, because argument by authority is sterile here, and I’m more interested in why you hold an ethical position than what someone told you to believe.

reassure me that God prefers the murder of dozens of innocent and heroic men and women to X’s “lie”.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I’m going to use “lie” with scare quotes because we can’t agree on a definition. the least common definition is a falsehood of some kind. I believe that not all false statements are lies condemned by the CCC.

decisions resulting in the murder of innocent people who aren’t connected to the person and who didn’t consent to, or even approve of his scruples (denying them an opportunity to seek safety elsewhere), I will always find repulsive and unChristian, Aquinas and Thomas notwithstanding. its self-centered and morally bankrupt, in a disgusting way … “look at me, I didn’t ‘lie’ – it hurt me more than it hurt them, and I’m sad that dozens of people were murdered because of my complicity, but that’s what God wanted of me.”

we’re at an impasse. you believe that X should give up his neighbor and the escape line and the Jews the neighbor is sheltering, resulting in their deaths and likely other deaths as well when that network gets rolled up, rather than mislead the nazis in what you consider a lie. and that God will tell you you dun good. if this conduct feels morally correct to anyone, God help all of us.

Here goes:

1. Your argument relies on two premises, the idea of lacking a right to the truth, and the idea that saving human life outweighs the evil of a falsehood. The former may be true, but as I have already shown, lacking a right to the truth does not imply a right for another to lie. It is entirely possible to not tell an individual the truth without spreading them a falsehood with the intent to deceive (CCC definition). Next, your reliance on consequentialist arguments is really a weak point, because consequentialism relies on the idea that man CAN know what the consequences of his actions are. In reality, man is not God and does not know with absolute certainty what the consequences of his actions will be. Because of this the morality of an action must be judged based on the act of the will, not on the consequences it produces.
2. One of the primordial principles behind Catholic ethics is loving and respecting a human person as an end and never as a mere means (Veritatis Splendor 48). Regardless of the actions that the Nazi intends to to commit, he is still a human person and has the same human dignity as anyone else. Natural law requires us to respect this dignity and never treat him as a mere means. If we were to lie to him we would be treating him as a mere means to the end of saving the lives of the Jews. This brings us to the interesting place where we also have to treat the Jews as an end and not as a mere means to fulfilling the Nazi’s desire to kill them. How do we resolve this conflict. One of two ways: first, silence. We do not reveal the Jews hiding spot, and we do not lie to the Nazi. We leave them each to their own accord to do the actions that they see fit. This action seems a bit callous, but at the very least would be morally acceptable. The second method would be by desecrate language. Not lying to the Nazi, but simply inviting him in, asking him questions and letting him figure the answers out on his own.

These solutions may not work. Both the person hiding the Jews and the Nazi may die. This, however, would not be the fault of the person who refuses to lie. This would be the choice of the Nazi to violate the fundamental ethical norm of respect for human dignity by not killing an individual.

you can quote and interpret Augustine, Aquinas and a dozen other dudes, but your take is a total fail by any natural interpretation of Christian morality. until the CCC says in unambiguous words, give up the Jews instead of misleading the nazis, because God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, prefers indirect collaboration with evil and the deaths of innocent people to a “lie”.

in fact, try not quoting either, because argument by authority is sterile here, and I’m more interested in why you hold an ethical position than what someone told you to believe.

reassure me that God prefers the murder of dozens of innocent and heroic men and women to X’s “lie”.

I was using argument by authority to show that the Catholic moral tradition reads the Catechism in a way that is contrary to your reading, since the “right to truth” appears to be your sole justification. This is contrary to the Catholic moral tradition on this matter, as I believe I have adequately demonstrated.

 

[nodito]

I’d instruct my investigators to be aware that word games or less than direct answers like the script above means you’ve found Jews.

So you’re claiming that direct answers would convince you then? Someone says, “No really, no Jews here!” and you’d just leave?