Interesting Question

[JimG]

When someone asks, “How are things going with you?,” they don’t necessarily want, (nor are they entitled to receive) a complete, full, and truthfull response.

And if your wife asks, as you head out the door for an evening out, “how do I look?” there is only one acceptable response, and truth or falsehood has nothing to do with it.

What I’m getting at is that absolutism on the matter of “lying” is not always a good thing.

Prudence is a virtue.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

blackrobe,

I’m not sure I follow. By my reading that part about not being entitled to truth was removed from the second english edition. The offical latin edition doesn’t seem to have it.

Am I missing something?

VC

p.s. As an aside, I was a bit surprised to see that the vatican website doesn’t use the second english edition.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It would seem, then, that lying is objectively immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

It would also seem, based on this quote from the CCC

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.

that a lie intended to protect innocent lives would not, in and of itself, be mortally sinful.

Paragraphs 2488 and 2489 confirm that the right to knowledge is not universal, but neither paragraph permits lying – only “being silent” or “discreet language”.

But this raises two more interesting questions:

First, the way this section of the CCC is worded, it seems to presuppose that “leading someone into error” means leading them to danger, humiliation, sin, or some other damaging consequence. Is it really a “failure in justice and charity” to tell the Nazis that there are no Jews in your basement? As someone else pointed out above, silence leads to the Gestapo searching your house, finding the Jews, and likely shipping you and your family to a camp alongside the Jews – if not a summary execution – whereas lying may well send the Gestapo on their way.

Second, let’s make these assumptions:

1. Lying is always inherently evil, even in our Nazi Germany example.
2. The gravity of lying is lessened in this case because one is protecting people who will no doubt be brutalized and/or killed if the truth is revealed, but it is not completely eliminated.
3. One is fully aware of 1 and 2.

Is one then sinning mortally by choosing a venially sinful action in the hope of saving lives?

(FYI: I used the version of the CCC available at www.scborromeo.org because of its search feature.)
Peace,
Dante

 

[blackrobe]

blackrobe,

I’m not sure I follow. By my reading that part about not being entitled to truth was removed from the second english edition. The offical latin edition doesn’t seem to have it.

Am I missing something?

VC

p.s. As an aside, I was a bit surprised to see that the vatican website doesn’t use the second english edition.

Oops! Thanks for noticing my error; I had it backwards. Here is the quote from my class materials written by Douglas G. Bushman, S.T.L.: “As far as I can tell, the version of the CCC at this site is the first English text of the CCC, without the modifications from the Editio Typica based on the official Latin text. To verify this, compare the Vatican website version of CCC 2483 to the same article in the second revised edition, noting that the expression ‘who has the right to know the truth’ has been dropped from the first to the second edition” Prof. Bushman adds in a note that he last verified this situation on 10 July 2007.

JSA

 

[Verbum_Caro]

blackrobe,

Yes, thats it. The Vatican website still has the First English Edition up. The Second English Edition seems to more faithfully render the official Latin edition.

Fascinating, actually. How did that additional phrase “someone who has the right to know the truth” get in there in the first place? It seems to have materialized out of thin air, even though the concept is certainly something that has been kicking around Catholic moral theology for a quite awhile.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

that a lie intended to protect innocent lives would not, in and of itself, be mortally sinful.

** Dante**,

I would concur. Classically lies were classified into three categories: the jacose (joking lie), the officious (white lie), and the injurious (malicious lie).

Lying to protect someone or to aid someone would fall under the category of officious lie. Its not told as a joke or to injure someone. Usually only the injurious or malicious lie, would be considered as possibly mortally sinful. The other two, officious and jacose, are at most venial sins.

It would seem, then, that lying is objectively immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

I think this is usually upheld, at least by the Schoolmen, by arguing that the proper end of speaking is the communication of the truth, and when one uses the faculty of speech to communicate a falsehood one deviates from the proper end.

VC

 

[blackrobe]

blackrobe,

Yes, thats it. The Vatican website still has the First English Edition up. The Second English Edition seems to more faithfully render the official Latin edition.

Fascinating, actually. How did that additional phrase “someone who has the right to know the truth” get in there in the first place? It seems to have materialized out of thin air, even though the concept is certainly something that has been kicking around Catholic moral theology for a quite awhile.

VC

Maybe the same way the word stable mysteriously materialized in the English translation of the recent* motu proprio* promulgated in the U.S.?

JSA

 

[anthony022071]

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.

It isn’t a cop-out. It means a person has a moral conscience and is using it,rather than merely making decisions in a mechanical manner according to a misguided scrupulosity. Lying,in this case,would be a moral option,because human lives are at stake,and that is far more important than the act of lying. Whether or not lying is sometimes the best option is a somewhat different matter. Morality should not degenerate into a philosophy of expediency and success. Exceptions to the rules should be considered exceptions to the rules,and not become rules unto themselves.

 

[willj1365]

Consider this for a moment:

Does the state of mind of the person who answers the door (in this scenario) come into play? In other words - let’s say that a German who is protecting a Jewish family answers the door, and lies to the Nazi but does so because he wants to protect the innocent, but wants to protect himself more (self preservation). If he is completely truthful, he puts not only the Jewish family at risk, but himself and his family for sure.

Is this somewhat akin to when Peter denied Christ in the courtyard? He (no doubt) felt his life at risk, and acted (lied) out of self preservation.

How about the people brought before Ciaphas that may have answered truthfully about what Jesus was preaching? These truthful answers may have ‘built the case’ against Jesus in some way. But this was God’s plan, and if they had lied to protect Jesus, would that have helped Jesus in the long run?

It is such a difficult question to ponder. I guess what I am wondering is how God would look on the lie. He would look at our heart (which only He can do) and see if we are lying out of a sense of compassion for others or an act of selfishness.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

** Dante**,
I think this is usually upheld, at least by the Schoolmen, by arguing that the proper end of speaking is the communication of the truth, and when one uses the faculty of speech to communicate a falsehood one deviates from the proper end.

VC

Indeed, I believe those very words appear in the CCC’s definition and condemnation of lying.

Any thoughts as to the wording of the CCC on this issue and how it seems to presuppose injurious lies when it says lying is to be condemned “by its very nature”?

Peace,
Dante

 

[wjp984]

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 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.

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

Well. first of all, I use the catechism as guidelines and not as doctrine that I am bound to follow so if I disagree on an issue the catechism alone is not going to make me change my mind. It certainly is not an infallible document. The discrepency just made me lose almost all confidence in it. This is a separete issue though.

In regards to your comments, I am not falling into any 1 L itis. I apply the law as to what I currently know and if someone educates me otherwise then I learn more. For example, after answering correctly a series of questions and hypotheticals on whether something is a trespass to land I next was asked whether someone choosing to trespass in an effort to avoid a car crash woud be liable for trespass. I answered that it would be since the only required element of trespass of intent is still present. Now I would now answer the question with no since there is a privilege of necessity. However, I didn’t know that at the time and wasn’t going to fall into some hopeless trap where I am defenseless. In review the professor even said that it would be a trespass though there might be a privilege involved. For purposes of the question at the time, I answered correctly.

We start negligence this week and I’ll start my reading for it tomorrow so I don’t know a darn thing about it as of yet other than what is common sense.

I still think the privilege for self defense of others or self would work in regards to lieing. In fact, the law in many jurisdictions says that in self defense, one can only resort to homicide if their is no other possible reasonable means of defense. I would argue that if one could lie in self defense then this would be much better than killing in self defense. Are you saying that in order to not sin these people must supply weapons to the Jews and themselves, tell the truth, and then defend themselves with guns since killing is allowed but lieing is not? This seems rather ridiculous. If the catechism or religion allows for killing to sometimes not be sinful than certainly the same can be said of lieing.

 

[Pete_1]

Wow i once read an extract on a mass sheet about this.

It went along these lines:

"I once met a man who was commited to telling the absolute truth. I asked him if he was in nazi Germany harbouring jews, and the gestapo came and questioned him would he lie to save them. His answer was no. When i said i would say ‘i am not harbouring any jews’ he was shocked, as this was a lie. However i explained the word ‘jew’ has different meanings. The Gestapo officer thought jew meant a creature lower than all and unworthy of life. I however belived that the word ‘jew’ meant a human being, entitled to diginty and respect.

In effect the Gestapo officer would be asking me 'are you hiding any creatures lower than all, and unworthy of life. My answer ‘no’ to the officers question would be in no way a lie. There were no such humans i knew of."