Hiding from the Nazis question

[Orionthehunter]

That is a quote from the New Advent article, and illustrates my point exactly. Yes, there were various fathers who thought up some exceptions, but some who didn’t, especially Augustine (not in the quote) who said tell the truth in full, come what may. The kicker quote of course is “But if the common teaching of Catholic theology on this point be admitted” [lying is wrong by it’s very nature]. In other words, that is what the Church teaching is, and it is binding on the faithful. No lying. No exceptions.

The Church disagrees:

CC 1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Nullified means there are no consequences to the act when done under duress. Thus not a sin.

One must incorporate the entire Teaching of the Church and not select just one section. To do so is similar to what is often done with regard to Scripture.

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.

I think we all agree that in this situation the Nazi’s have no right to the truth.

2491 Professional secrets—for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers—or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

If it is reasonable that silence will be inferred as harboring Jews, silence is effective divulging of information with grave consequences.

By virtue of the duress and the grave consequences, we have an obligation to take action necessary to accomplish what we must.

But to make you feel better, the Church defines “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (CC2482). If I deny that there are no Jews under my house, I don’t intend to decieve them. My intention is to protect those who I promised to protect.

 

[Scottgun]

No the Church does not disagree because you are conflating the objective wrongness of an act and one’s subjective culpability for doing that act. The two are related, but different things.

You are right that our culpability for doing wrong is reduced or even nullified to the point that there is no sin. BUT my point stands: Lying is objectively wrong. And none of the rest of the CCC you quote translates into,“it’s ok to lie in these situations.”

Or put it this way, an angry boyfriend may threaten the life of his pregnant girlfiend if she does not have an abortion, and she may not be fully responsible if she goes through with it because of duress, but the fact remains that abortion is objectively wrong. So is lying.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Jesus said… “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends”. (John 15:12-14)

Let’s not forget… that the Catholic family, are risking their own lives in hiding the Jewish people.

 

[Scottgun]

But to make you feel better, the Church defines “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (CC2482). If I deny that there are no Jews under my house, I don’t intend to decieve them. My intention is to protect those who I promised to protect.

This is incorrect. If asked, “Are you hiding Jews?” And your act is to say, “No” when you are, that is a discreet act of lying. You are doing that act with the best of subjective intentions I’ll grant, but as they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Now, as you say, the duress mitigates culpability, so no one is going to Hell here (except perhaps the Nazi, and even that is not a certain bet) and I would likely succumb to temptation like most people, but wrong it remains.

 

[Orionthehunter]

No the Church does not disagree because you are conflating the objective wrongness of an act and one’s subjective culpability for doing that act. The two are related, but different things.

You are right that our culpability for doing wrong is reduced or even nullified to the point that there is no sin. BUT my point stands: Lying is objectively wrong. And none of the rest of the CCC you quote translates into,“it’s ok to lie in these situations.”

Or put it this way, an angry boyfriend may threaten the life of his pregnant girlfiend if she does not have an abortion, and she may not be fully responsible if she goes through with it because of duress, but the fact remains that abortion is objectively wrong. So is lying.

Maybe we are saying the same thing. Let me see if this passes your muster Scott.

To lie, one must have an intent to decieve and the person has a right to the truth. If the intent is not to decieve or the person has no right to the truth, there is no lie.

Intent: Honor the promise to protect the Jews or the higher purpose of protecting life.

Right to the Truth: The Nazi’s have no right to the truth because they are going to use the truth to do grave evil.

I acknowledge that I am effectively combining two sections of the Catechism. But when I read the entire Section of the Catechism on Offenses against the Truth, I’m applying to discerning the Catechism the same standard that Catholics apply to the Bible of not taking a single verse literally without considering the context of Teaching in its entirety. (I’m leaving out the distress argument but think it could be incorporated if necessary).

 

[Scottgun]

Maybe we are saying the same thing. Let me see if this passes your muster Scott.

Maybe, it’s obviously a fantastic scenario, and makes it difficult.

To lie, one must have an intent to decieve and the person has a right to the truth.

If the intent is not to decieve or the person has no right to the truth, there is no lie.

Intent: Honor the promise to protect the Jews or the higher purpose of protecting life.

Right to the Truth: The Nazi’s have no right to the truth because they are going to use the truth to do grave evil.

As I edited in my other post that you might have missed, it’s actually simple:

“Are you hiding Jews?”

You are and you say, “No”.

This is a discreet act: lying. Not having a right to the truth does not give a license to lie. And it seems to me there are lots of options other than lying. There is silence which no one likes and I don’t blame them. But there is also dodging the question like, “Come on in and search if you must, would you like some coffee while your men are at it?” Or, “got a warrant?” (I don’t know enough about German law, but contrary to the popular conception that Nazi’s always did the most evil thing possible, they did occassionally respect the ordinary citizens) Or, and I know people will hate this: beg for mercy or ask for an exception to look the other way. Since the scenario is so fantastic to begin with, I don’t see why I can’t throw this one out.

I acknowledge that I am effectively combining two sections of the Catechism. But when I read the entire Section of the Catechism on Offenses against the Truth, I’m applying to discerning the Catechism the same standard that Catholics apply to the Bible of not taking a single verse literally without considering the context of Teaching in its entirety. (I’m leaving out the distress argument but think it could be incorporated if necessary).

Well there is no two ways about it. Just like the argument that because the procedure called abortion is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, it’s ok is a turkey, so the insistence that lying is wrong by it’s very nature, and is explicitly from the devil, it’s inescapable. It is is vital we cling to this. The moment we allow exceptions, we’ve shot our whole case because there is always the question, “How do we know this guy preaching the Gospel isn’t lying and claiming it’s ok because it is one of the exceptions?” This is why I would never be a Muslim, because it’s just as much situational ethics as the most secular of secular humanists. The Catholic Church is one of, if not the only, last places that holds to absolute moral norms.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Maybe, it’s obviously a fantastic scenario, and makes it difficult.

As I edited in my other post that you might have missed, it’s actually simple:

“Are you hiding Jews?”

You are and you say, “No”.

This is a discreet act: lying. Not having a right to the truth does not give a license to lie. And it seems to me there are lots of options other than lying. There is silence which no one likes and I don’t blame them. But there is also dodging the question like, “Come on in and search if you must, would you like some coffee while your men are at it?” Or, “got a warrant?” (I don’t know enough about German law, but contrary to the popular conception that Nazi’s always did the most evil thing possible, they did occassionally respect the ordinary citizens) Or, and I know people will hate this: beg for mercy or ask for an exception to look the other way. Since the scenario is so fantastic to begin with, I don’t see why I can’t throw this one out.

Well there is no two ways about it. Just like the argument that because the procedure called abortion is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, it’s ok is a turkey, so the insistence that lying is wrong by it’s very nature, and is explicitly from the devil, it’s inescapable. It is is vital we cling to this. The moment we allow exceptions, we’ve shot our whole case because there is always the question, “How do we know this guy preaching the Gospel isn’t lying and claiming it’s ok because it is one of the exceptions?”

Our goal is to pursue and find both Truth and truth.

Is the question “Are you hiding Jews” or is what is unsaid in the question also part of the truth? “Are you hiding Jews so that they may be executed?”

And thus, is the answer then “No” because part of the answer is “you may not kill them.”

I’m not trying to parse. I’m trying to discern the Truth.

It is done when a baby is removed from a womb to save a life. Even though the operation may be the exact same as that to perform an abortion (intent to terminate a pregnancy), the intent defines the act. What appears to be an objectively evil act is not evil. So it is if I were to shoot an attacker in the head and kill him. I didn’t murder him but only intended to rightly protect myself. Death is a by-product of a legitimate act.

These examples are clear w/ regard to Church Teaching. I think they apply in this situation when I read the entire section of the Catechism on Offenses against the Truth.

We can’t define the act on the surface w/o regard to the intent or the legitimacy of the question/questioner. IMO, to do so removes context in a way that defeats Truth, not serve it.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe we are saying the same thing. Let me see if this passes your muster Scott.

To lie, one must have an intent to decieve and the person has a right to the truth. If the intent is not to decieve or the person has no right to the truth, there is no lie.

Intent: Honor the promise to protect the Jews or the higher purpose of protecting life.

Right to the Truth: The Nazi’s have no right to the truth because they are going to use the truth to do grave evil.

I acknowledge that I am effectively combining two sections of the Catechism. But when I read the entire Section of the Catechism on Offenses against the Truth, I’m applying to discerning the Catechism the same standard that Catholics apply to the Bible of not taking a single verse literally without considering the context of Teaching in its entirety. (I’m leaving out the distress argument but think it could be incorporated if necessary).

Firstly you can’t generalise that preserving life is automatically a higher good than telling truth - Jesus said He was the Truth as well and equally as much as the Life and that lies come from the evil one. Not that ‘yeah, I’m the Truth, but only a bit of the Truth and not nearly as much the Truth as I am the Life’.

Not to mention that He and His Apostles gave up their own lives for the sake of their truth - when they could easily have used mental reservation or some such and saved their lives and possibly the lives of others, since they drew attention to their followers as well as themselves. And remember that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for sinning against the Holy Spirit by their lies. So no, telling truth is not automatically a second-class good.

Secondly - to lie in such a situation is to betray a lack of trust in God’s will and providence. Ultimately, regardless of what you may say or not say to those Nazis, there is only One who can save them. He has certainly done greater miracles than saving Jews from Nazis in the past, and doubtless can and will do so again for those whose sole trust is, as it should be, in Him and not their own cleverness.

And if, for His good reasons, He requires on that day their lives of those Jews you’re hiding, be assured He will have them - He’ll make them sneeze and betray themselves or what have you, and your cleverness and sin will go for nothing.

Thirdly - the whole point of sin is that it’s something we choose to do. If you literally have no option but to sin then your action becomes no sin at all. If there is any way in which you can do anything in the alternative which falls short of sinning then that is the option you must take.

In this case silence is ambiguous. A previous poster has argued that it could mean complicity, but certainly one can be silent but *physically *do everything reasonable to prevent the Nazis searching, which would be neither complicity nor lying nor sinful!

And who knows, if you stay silent the Nazis may focus on you instead to get you to tell them where the Jews are, and so give them the time and warning they need to escape. So if faced with a choice between an action that is morally ambiguous (silence) and downright sinful (lying) I’d go for the ambiguous one any day.

 

[porthos11]

By the way, I’d just like to point out the God rewarded certain people for lying through their teeth.

The Hebrew midwives made up some fantastic story about the Hebrew women being too fertile when they actually refused to kill the baby boys (although this may easily qualify as a mental reservation, and therefore, not a lie.) God rewarded them with their own families.

Rahab lied outright and told the Jericho soldiers that the spied had already fled, although they were hidden on her rooftop (I can’t see any mental reservation here). Because of that, she was spared (and it was a divinely-approved sparing, because Jericho was under herem).

 

[porthos11]

Firstly you can’t generalise that preserving life is automatically a higher good than telling truth - Jesus said He was the Truth as well and equally as much as the Life and that lies come from the evil one. Not that ‘yeah, I’m the Truth, but only a bit of the Truth and not nearly as much the Truth as I am the Life’.

Not to mention that He and His Apostles gave up their own lives for the sake of their truth - when they could easily have used mental reservation or some such and saved their lives and possibly the lives of others, since they drew attention to their followers as well as themselves.

And they indeed could have. That’s why they hid. But eventually, they died because they were made to CHOOSE, not answer questions. They refused to worship pagan gods, hence, they willingly chose death. No amount of mental reservation would have saved their lives anyway.

They were killed for refusing to give up Christianity. So essentially, the persecutor asked: “Will you sacrifice to the gods?” If they used a mental reservation and said “Yes” with the qualification “when pigs fly,” that’s a strict mental reservation, is no better than a lie. There’s no room for wide mental reservation under such a circumstance.

And remember that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for sinning against the Holy Spirit by their lies. So no, telling truth is not automatically a second-class good.

Because they were lying to God and his Church.

Secondly - to lie in such a situation is to betray a lack of trust in God’s will and providence. Ultimately, regardless of what you may say or not say to those Nazis, there is only One who can save them. He has certainly done greater miracles than saving Jews from Nazis in the past, and doubtless can and will do so again for those whose sole trust is, as it should be, in Him and not their own cleverness.

But as part of his providence, he gave the doctrine of mental reservation to his Church, precisely for situations such as these. (Wide) mental reservation is NOT lying. Prudence dictates that we use all moral options available to us.

And if, for His good reasons, He requires on that day their lives of those Jews you’re hiding, be assured He will have them - He’ll make them sneeze and betray themselves or what have you, and your cleverness and sin will go for nothing.

Not if you used mental reservation, which is a moral option, and, which, in this case you are required to use.

Thirdly - the whole point of sin is that it’s something we choose to do. If you literally have no option but to sin then your action becomes no sin at all. If there is any way in which you can do anything in the alternative which falls short of sinning then that is the option you must take.

Nope. If an action is intrinsically evil, then it is always a sin. Whether or not it is a mortal sin or venial sin is a whole other story.

In this case silence is ambiguous. A previous poster has argued that it could mean complicity, but certainly one can be silent but *physically *do everything reasonable to prevent the Nazis searching, which would be neither complicity nor lying nor sinful!

Silence would be imprudent. You might as well slap a big “Jews Here!” sign on your door.

And who knows, if you stay silent the Nazis may focus on you instead to get you to tell them where the Jews are, and so give them the time and warning they need to escape. So if faced with a choice between an action that is morally ambiguous (silence) and downright sinful (lying) I’d go for the ambiguous one any day.

Both options are unacceptable. The mental reservation option is the only wise decision that satisfies both truth and justice.

One cannot sacrifice justice for the sake of truth and vice versa.

 

[LilyM]

Silence would be imprudent. You might as well slap a big “Jews Here!” sign on your door.

I would think physically barring their way, with force if necessary, would do at least as much to dissuade them from searching as merely asserting ‘no we don’t have any Jews here’ - or anything else you said.

And doesn’t require anything even approaching a falsehood or any equivocation of the truth.

Both options are unacceptable. The mental reservation option is the only wise decision that satisfies both truth and justice.

Drawing the Nazis attention to yourself so as to give the Jews time to escape is unacceptable? I think Jesus would disagree. ‘Greater love hath no man than this …’

And since when would someone in this situation be required to use mental reservation? It’s permissible, but it doesn’t make it necessary if other options are available.

Quote:
And if, for His good reasons, He requires on that day their lives of those Jews you’re hiding, be assured He will have them - He’ll make them sneeze and betray themselves or what have you, and your cleverness and sin will go for nothing.

Not if you used mental reservation, which is a moral option, and, which, in this case you are required to use.

So if you were in the middle of saying how you weren’t hiding anyone in your house and a great big ‘achoo’ resounded from the cellar the Nazis wouldn’t take the liberty of searching anyway??? Like I said, if God wants your Jewish guests to be found for His own reasons then they will be, mental reservation or no.

One cannot sacrifice justice for the sake of truth and vice versa.

No, but for mine there’s still the option of fighting back which satisfies justice at much less risk to truth.

 

[porthos11]

I would think physically barring their way, with force if necessary, would do at least as much to dissuade them from searching as merely asserting ‘no we don’t have any Jews here’ - or anything else you said.

And doesn’t require anything even approaching a falsehood or any equivocation of the truth.

Drawing the Nazis attention to yourself so as to give the Jews time to escape is unacceptable? I think Jesus would disagree. ‘Greater love hath no man than this …’

And since when would someone in this situation be required to use mental reservation? It’s permissible, but it doesn’t make it necessary if other options are available.

So if you were in the middle of saying how you weren’t hiding anyone in your house and a great big ‘achoo’ resounded from the cellar the Nazis wouldn’t take the liberty of searching anyway??? Like I said, if God wants your Jewish guests to be found for His own reasons then they will be, mental reservation or no.

No, but for mine there’s still the option of fighting back which satisfies justice at much less risk to truth.

Well, fighting back is also an option, although again, prudence might dissuade me from fighting down an armed gang of SS’s. They’s most likely kill me, and then, given the heads up, trash the house and kill the Jews as well (the scenario does not assume an escape route). Since I shouldn’t endanger my life needlessly, I should exercise the first moral option that allows me to save my life and those I’m protecting.

I don’t know why you object so much to wide mental reservation when the Church accepts it as a moral option and is not equivalent to lying? It serves both truth and justice, and everyone remains alive.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Well, fighting back is also an option, although again, prudence might dissuade me from fighting down an armed gang of SS’s. They’s most likely kill me, and then, given the heads up, trash the house and kill the Jews as well (the scenario does not assume an escape route). Since I shouldn’t endanger my life needlessly, I should exercise the first moral option that allows me to save my life and those I’m protecting.

I don’t know why you object so much to wide mental reservation when the Church accepts it as a moral option and is not equivalent to lying? It serves both truth and justice, and everyone remains alive.

True.

 

[chosen_people]

Judaism and Jewish law have clear answers to the seeming moral problem presented here:

"In Judaism, human life is essential and so pikuach nefesh, the obligation to save a life in jeopardy, is considered a major value to uphold. This obligation applies to both an immediate threat and a less grave danger that has the potential of becoming serious. **Pikuach nefesh is derived from the biblical verse, “Neither shall you stand by the blood of your neighbor” (Lev. 19:16). According to pikuach nefesh a person must do everything in their power to save the life of another… **

The Talmud contains several instances where the laws of the Sabbath are to be broken to save the life of another; (Yoma 84b).

In the case that one must make the choice of saving their own life or that of a companion, Rabbi Akiva states that it is permissible to save your life and not the other. This verdict was rationalized by the biblical verse, “Let him live by your side as your kinsman.” Rabbi Akiva determined that the verse implies that “your life takes precedence over his life.” One can only become a martyr if the option is between death and performing acts of idolatry, illegitimate sexual intercourse, or murder (Sanhedrin 74a-b)."

---

Sources: Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004;Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History. NY: William Morrow and Co., 1991; Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.

 

[Orionthehunter]

By the way, I’d just like to point out the God rewarded certain people for lying through their teeth.

The Hebrew midwives made up some fantastic story about the Hebrew women being too fertile when they actually refused to kill the baby boys (although this may easily qualify as a mental reservation, and therefore, not a lie.) God rewarded them with their own families.

Rahab lied outright and told the Jericho soldiers that the spied had already fled, although they were hidden on her rooftop (I can’t see any mental reservation here). Because of that, she was spared (and it was a divinely-approved sparing, because Jericho was under herem).

As clear as the Catechism is on this, the examples noted here are quite clear. There is a greater Truth than spoken truth. Then we have the example of Priests/religious in Germany who became Saints/martyrs when their work on behalf of the Jewish people resulted in execution. I’ll guarantee the day they were caught was not because they finally admitted what they were doing. They had been practicing a deception against the Nazi’s long before they were caught. And, do I have to get into the work of the Pope on behalf of Jews? He lied numerous times to Mussilini et. al.

Nothing in my conscience nor looking to the example of Scripture and these saints gives me any pause to do anything I can to save these precioius lives from an unjust execution.

 

[didymus]

See the absurdity of the scenario yet? It’s been tailored just so that the only choice apparently is to do the wrong thing. This is like saying, “you were a slut in the past, who are you to preach chastity now that you have had all the fun?”

The CCC is abundantly clear: lying is objectively wrong. It’s an absolute moral norm. And just like there is no prudential wiggle-room for direct abortion, there is no prudential wiggle-room in lying. The second one admits exceptions for lying, it never ends. No one ever says, “I’m going to do this wrong, muahahaha!” everyone rather says, “My situation is the exception.”, and evil wins again. It’s not about what God thought of you on Tuesday and Thursday as opposed to today, but rather believing Him when He tells you explicitly that lies come from the Evil One.

OK, if the Gestapo find the Jews and are dragging them off I’d be morally correct to kill the evildoers in defence of the innocent – but lying to prevent it from coming to that point is wrong?

OTOH, do I know for a fact that they are Jews? I haven’t checked their bloodlines or to see if they’re circumcised. All I know is the Gestapo think they are Jews and want to kill them on that account – and there will be no fair trial to determine if they are guilty of their “crime”.

OTOOH, what is a Jew? To the Nazis a Jew is a subhuman enemy of the Reich, fit only for slavery and extermination. So if I have some of God’s chosen people stashed away and the Gestapo ask if I’m hiding any Jews (subhumans) I could honestly say no.

 

[Orionthehunter]

OK, if the Gestapo find the Jews and are dragging them off I’d be morally correct to kill the evildoers in defence of the innocent – but lying to prevent it from coming to that point is wrong?

OTOH, do I know for a fact that they are Jews? I haven’t checked their bloodlines or to see if they’re circumcised. All I know is the Gestapo think they are Jews and want to kill them on that account – and there will be no fair trial to determine if they are guilty of their “crime”.

OTOOH, what is a Jew? To the Nazis a Jew is a subhuman enemy of the Reich, fit only for slavery and extermination. So if I have some of God’s chosen people stashed away and the Gestapo ask if I’m hiding any Jews (subhumans) I could honestly say no.

Your examples are consistent w/ the use of discrete language as allowed in the Catechism. It is apporpriate when we are dealing with people who are nosy or otherwise to gain/use information which you are not authorized to provide.

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.

But your first point is the most relevant. When we are looking into the face of the Evil One, the consequences are grave for another, the duress is real and immediate, the outcome is certain or near certain if we cooperate with Evil, we have two choices:

1. Be discreet and risk the life of another
2. Defy evil to his very face and risk my own earthly life for in doing so one would assume the likely outcome of the Jews.

And, while this question appears hypothetical it has real parallels in today’s world.

People who harbor abused women and children overtly decieve the abusive husband if he comes to the door of the facility asking if they are there.