Interesting Question

[Theophilus04]

I once got into a discussion with a man in a bookstore about religion, and although I believe the conversation itself went rather well, he posed a question I feel I didn’t address adequately.

I thought it might be an interesting one to ask here.

Suppose you are living in Germany during the holocaust and you are hiding a Jewish Family in your home. The Secret Police knocks at your door and asks you if you are hiding anyone. Is it acceptable to lie, and if so, does that mean that there are exceptions when it comes to sins? He went further to ask what Jesus would do in such a situation.

I’m interested to see your thoughts on this.

 

[porkscratchings]

I once got into a discussion with a man in a bookstore about religion, and although I believe the conversation itself went rather well, he posed a question I feel I didn’t address adequately.

I thought it might be an interesting one to ask here.

Suppose you are living in Germany during the holocaust and you are hiding a Jewish Family in your home. The Secret Police knocks at your door and asks you if you are hiding anyone. Is it acceptable to lie, and if so, does that mean that there are exceptions when it comes to sins? He went further to ask what Jesus would do in such a situation.

I’m interested to see your thoughts on this.

Most religions would allow the lie, on the grounds it is an act of compassion to protect the jewish family from people who would do them harm.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Most religions would allow the lie, on the grounds it is an act of compassion to protect the jewish family from people who would do them harm.

Actually, most religions say it is never justified to do evil so that good may come of it. Even a little evil for a great good. This is the Christian position.

However, this is the classic example of when it is justified to resort to “mental reservation.” It is not necessary to give a full answer. One can say “No, I’m not hiding anyone” because it is really the family who is hiding. In other words, you can answer a question as it was strictly asked, not volunteering any additional information.

Another way of looking at it is that the Gestapo has no right to the information, given what they intend to do with it, so they have no right to the full truth. In a case like this It is certainly moral to give them a truthful answer you know will mislead them.

 

[Mirdath]

Another way of looking at it is that the Gestapo has no right to the information, given what they intend to do with it, so they have no right to the full truth. In a case like this It is certainly moral to give them a truthful answer you know will mislead them.

The Gestapo may not have a right to the truth, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to deceive, if deception is absolutely wrong. Check out the ‘Moral Absolutism’ thread over in Philosophy, this problem got covered quite thoroughly. Like I said there, the idea of ‘mental reservation’ is a cheap utilitarian cop-out. Lying is not the moral option, but it is sometimes the best.

 

[AspiringDeacon]

The Gestapo may not have a right to the truth, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to deceive, if deception is absolutely wrong. Check out the ‘Moral Absolutism’ thread over in Philosophy, this problem got covered quite thoroughly. Like I said there, the idea of ‘mental reservation’ is a cheap utilitarian cop-out. Lying is not the moral option, but it is sometimes the best.

Actually I do not think this is what the Catholic Church teaches:

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.

*Protecting innocent lives form the Gestapo would certainly apply…

 

[wjp984]

Didn’t John Paul II have to lie about not being a priest during the time that they said the mass in secret? I think he had a secondary job and everything in order to cover up the truth.

Also, the 8th commandment says" Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" It does not say Thou shall not lie. It means you can’t lie in order to slander someone or hurt someone. Someone else can probably explain it better than me but I know there is a difference and lieing is not strictly forbidden nor sinful in all occasions.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

lieing is not strictly forbidden nor sinful in all occasions.

Hi** wjp894**,

It seems like it is. See the following sections of the Catechism:

2482 “A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

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.

Actually wjp, in light of your ongoing legal studies, you might find it interesting that Michigan law, based on common law, takes into account various nuances of the moral principles concerning lying. For instance, the seller in a real estate transaction commits FRAUD (the remedy of which is usually rescission of the transaction) if the seller makes 1) a representation of 2)material fact, which is 3) false and 4) known to be false when made, and 5) intends the buyer to rely upon, and 6) was in fact relied upon to 7) the buyer’s injury.

Silence is usually not considered representation unless the seller has an affirmative duty to disclose, which can happen in certain circumstances.

Morally and legally actual misrepresentation misses the mark.

VC

 

[wjp984]

It sure does seem like it according to the catechism excepts you provided but it is not definitive enough to convince me.

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

I have no argument for this as it states the definition of a lie

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.

Well it doesn’t say all lies are mortal and it doesn’t even say all lies are at least venial. Therefore some lies, although very few, under the circumstances would not be sinful at all. I think the circumstances in nazi Germany would apply to the non sinful lieing category

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.

By its nature yes, but again, not definitive. The catechism is not definitive with the category of lieing for a reason. It knows there are certain circumstances, although rare, where lieing is not sinful

 

[Charitychick]

The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom has a interesting section on this. Corrie’s family was part of an underground that sheltered Jews.

Corrie would lie if confronted by Nazi’s trying to find Jews. Her sister would never lie. Corrie was horrified that her sister would put the Jews under their protection in jeopardy. The sister maintained that God would honor her fidelity to his law by protecting those Jews. In fact, this proved to be the case. Corrie was bemused by this. Read the book–it’s a wonderful truelife story.

This scenario reminds me of the Maccabees. Remember all the Jews who were slaughtered because they refused to fight on the Sabbath? In that case, the higher law required them to protect their innocents–women and children. There is a hierarchy of values here. They should have fought. The Sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the Sabbath. They honored a lesser law at the expense of the greater law.

Not a clear analogy, perhaps, but my mind made the connection.

 

[wjp984]

Hi** wjp894**,

It seems like it is. See the following sections of the Catechism:
Actually wjp, in light of your ongoing legal studies, you might find it interesting that Michigan law, based on common law, takes into account various nuances of the moral principles concerning lying. For instance, the seller in a real estate transaction commits FRAUD (the remedy of which is usually rescission of the transaction) if the seller makes 1) a representation of 2)material fact, which is 3) false and 4) known to be false when made, and 5) intends the buyer to rely upon, and 6) was in fact relied upon to 7) the buyer’s injury.

Silence is usually not considered representation unless the seller has an affirmative duty to disclose, which can happen in certain circumstances.

Morally and legally actual misrepresentation misses the mark.

VC

you also left out:

2483: Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Clearly this proves that lieing is permissable when someone, like a Nazi, does not have a right to the truth. I think a previous poster mentioned that to. In any regard lieing certainly is not sinful in all circumstances as even the catechism acknowledges that. Or actually, more specifically, the catechism is not ambiguous now that I think more into it.

The catechism gives a very clear defintion of what a lie is and when someone does not have a right to the truth then you are not lieing to them when you tell a lie. Therefore, lieing would be sinful in all circumstances. However the person you are lieing to must have the right to the truth. This is kind of like defining the elements of a tort.

And I thought that I wasn’t going to be able to post on this forum anymore due to being too busy with law school. I almost always find ways to relate my law studies to this forum and take a break and still post on here and therefore not think I am being completely unproductive wasting valuable study time.

 

[Mirdath]

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.

That one is not bound to disclose the truth does not give one a right to deceive. You cannot control whether someone else acts morally, but you sure can decide to behave morally or immorally yourself. ‘Proper’ action, I guess, would be standing there mute.

Protecting innocent lives form the Gestapo would certainly apply…

Sometimes there just isn’t a moral answer. If you say ‘yes’ to the question, innocents are murdered. If you say ‘no’, you’re lying. If you remain silent, the Gestapo search your house and kill you along with the Jews.

In that case, to hell with my absolutist moral code. I’d lie, because although it is immoral, it’s still the best course of action. That doesn’t make me a relativist, it just means I’m not perfect.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It sure does seem like it according to the catechism excepts you provided but it is not definitive enough to convince me.
. . . The catechism is not definitive with the category of lieing for a reason. It knows there are certain circumstances, although rare, where lieing is not sinful

Shall I try to convince you? It would be in my best interest, as well as for the common good for me to do so, considering that you may become a practicing attorney someday.

To wit, see the full text of the Catechism passage:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Further, see the Summa (II-II, 110, 3, “Whether every lie is a sin”)

An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful. . . . Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that “lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.” Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).

Christ calls Satan the father of lies. An expression I once heard offers food for thought: “When you lie, you take the devil’s point of view.”

What do you think?
VC

 

[wjp984]

That one is not bound to disclose the truth does not give one a right to deceive. You cannot control whether someone else acts morally, but you sure can decide to behave morally or immorally yourself. ‘Proper’ action, I guess, would be standing there mute.

Sometimes there just isn’t a moral answer. If you say ‘yes’ to the question, innocents are murdered. If you say ‘no’, you’re lying. If you remain silent, the Gestapo search your house and kill you along with the Jews.

In that case, to hell with my absolutist moral code. I’d lie, because although it is immoral, it’s still the best course of action. That doesn’t make me a relativist, it just means I’m not perfect.

According to the catechism, when someone does not have a right to the truth, then you are not lieing. It clearly defines what a lie is and is not.

 

[wjp984]

Shall I try to convince you? It would be in my best interest, as well as for the common good for me to do so, considering that you may become a practicing attorney someday.

To wit, see the full text of the Catechism passage:

Further, see the Summa (II-II, 110, 3, “Whether every lie is a sin”)

Christ calls Satan the father of lies. An expression I once heard offers food for thought: “When you lie, you take the devil’s point of view.”

.

What do you think?
VC

You are not even quoting the catechism correctly. I am on the vatican website right now. I correctly quoted it in my above post regarding 2483 and I will do it again:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Also, it is possible that you do take the devil’s point of view when you lie. However, I will reiterate, if someone does not have the right to the truth then you are not lieing. This is a very subjective standard and thankfully, the only one who needs to judge is the fairest and most knowledgable of them all, God

 

[Mirdath]

According to the catechism, when someone does not have a right to the truth, then you are not lieing. It clearly defines what a lie is and is not.

It does indeed clearly define it, as Verbum Caro noted in CCC 2483: 2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

We appear to be on different versions of vatican.va. The site I’m on says nothing about a right to the truth.

It makes no mention of secret police or any other exceptions: deceit is wrong, plain and simple.

 

[wjp984]

It does indeed clearly define it, as Verbum Caro noted in CCC 2483: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

It makes no mention of secret police or any other exceptions: deceit is wrong, plain and simple.

why do you keep misquoting the catechism and leaving out the part that I am quoting? I just explained the excpetion. One must have the right to know the truth for there to be a lie. End of story. The catechism clearly says this. If you have done one thing right you have got me to change my opinion from stating that not all lies are sinful. All lies are sinful; it is just that not every lie one says is really a lie since the required element of a right to know the truth might not be there.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The catechism gives a very clear defintion of what a lie is and when someone does not have a right to the truth then you are not lieing to them when you tell a lie. Therefore, lieing would be sinful in all circumstances. However the person you are lieing to must have the right to the truth. This is kind of like defining the elements of a tort.

You might have to tightening up your language for legal writing class. What I’ve bolded above seems like a nonsenscial statement, or at least has the appearance of being internally inconsistent. I think I know what you meant though: that when one makes a statment which is false to someone who has no right to the truth then that is not a lie by definition.

However, all have a right to be told the truth. However not all have a right to be TOLD in the first place. In otherwords, if we speak we must not deliberately speak falsehood. But not everyone is entitled to our information. A good example is Attorney-Client privilege. You are not compelled to reveal to another what your client has divulged in secret. However, that does not give you license to misrepresent a fact by communicating a falsehood about what your client did say.

Also wpj, I think you might be using an old version of the Catechism. The first edition of CCC 2483 had “in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” But the revised edition does not.

VC

 

[wjp984]

I’m using whatever version is on the Vatican website. If they left that part out in a newer version I am perplexed as to why. As far as I am concerned, one is only liable for what the Vatican posts on their website in regards to the catechism. The statement I wrote was a little awkward but gramatically correct for the most part. It does seem a bit contradictory but the point is there. The rules and definitions judges use in their cases can be quite confusing like that as well which is why it takes forever to read them. Although I probably would revise my statement and use your way of phrasing it to make it easier to understand.

And you just made me think of another point. The defense of privilege. One might have a privilege to lie in certain situations such as the Nazi Germany one. It would be self defense. I mean, theoretially, one could tell the truth, have the nazis come in and then you could supply the Jews with some guns to defend themselves. Murder would not be sinful due to self defense. Likewise, the more peaceful and highly more successful defense strategy would be to lie in self defense.

Privilege also extends to defense of others so the third party protecting the Jews could lie if you are concerned they are not the ones currently at harm. Then again, the penalty for hiding Jews would be death so the third party would be at harm and could use the privilege of defense to self anyways.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m using whatever version is on the Vatican website. If they left that part out in a newer version I am perplexed as to why. As far as I am concerned, one is only liable for what the Vatican posts on their website in regards to the catechism.

Wjp,

I’m not sure that would be prudent. The English translation of the catechism has had two editions. Neither is the *official *text. Only the Latin text, the so called *editio typica, *is the official version.

The Latin text for the section in question is

2483 Mendacium est directissima contra veritatem offensa. Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem. Mendacium, relationem hominis ad veritatem et ad proximum laedens, fundamentali nocet relationi hominis eiusque verbi ad Dominum.

And I believe the second sentence “Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem.” is better rendered in by second english edition as “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

I also think you may be misapplying what you have learned so far in Torts class. A word to the wise here, if I may be so bold, don’t fall into the trap of 1L-itis and apply the newly acquired legal vocabulary and concepts across the board. It has precise and limited application.

But, if you wanted to analogize, I would say that the right to the truth is more like the duty element in an action for negligence. The question then is does a duty arise? It would seem that you always have a duty to speak to the truth, if you choose to speak. You don’t have to speak though. An even better analogy would be the duty to rescue someone in danger. In common law you do not have a duty unless you create the duty by starting to help them (or you have a special relationship to the person). By analogy you don’t have a duty to reveal everything to everyone, but when you begin reveal something, you cannot lie.

wjp984:

And you just made me think of another point. The defense of privilege. One might have a privilege to lie in certain situations . . .Murder would not be sinful due to self defense.

Again, I’d say be careful of applying legal principles across the board. Morally, you can’t have a privilege to lie if lying is objectively evil, simply because you cannot perform an evil act to achieve a good end. You also seem to misapply your analogy to law: Murder is never privileged. Murder is usually defined in common law as the “unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought”. When you have a defense of justification it is a homicide, not murder, and may not be a criminal offense Murder is always wrong, it is an objective evil.

What do you think?
VC

 

[blackrobe]

We appear to be on different versions of vatican.va. The site I’m on says nothing about a right to the truth.

It makes no mention of secret police or any other exceptions: deceit is wrong, plain and simple.

The CCC on the Vatican website is the first edition. The part about being entitled to the truth was added to the second [current edition]. This unfortunate circumstance was pointed out by my professor in a graduate-level course on the Catechism. It certainly does change the ground of the argument.

JSA