Is it ever OK to lie?

[Rascalking]

Every life is created in love by a loving God and it is never OK to hand it over to someone who will harm it. NEVER.

I would rather lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie than to let harm come to people I am protecting. If I can’t do that, I’m not protecting them and I should be ashamed.

And if it comes down to it, I will give my life for those people I am protecting. Because that is what Jesus would do and I love Him and want to be like Him.

Holy Mother, please pray for
the safety of the unborn and for
those who fight for their right to life.**

You and I don’t disagree at all littlesolider. I think my previous posts show that.

We are in COMPLETE Agreement.

 

[Timothysis]

Here’s another scenario for consideration;

Jack and Jill work in an office and the rumor is going around that both of them, though married, are having an affair. One day Jill confides in you that she was indeed having an affair with Jack but that it is over and she deeply regrets her actions and thanks you for allowing herself to unburden her sorrow in your confidence. Later, Little Boy Blue, who saw you talking to Jill, comes up and says, "hey, did Jill tell you that she was having an affair with Jack?" How do you answer?

If you say, “yes she did,” then you have betrayed the confidence that Jill placed in you.

If you say, “maybe,” then you basically admitted the same and have betrayed Jill’s confidence.

If you say, “no,” then according to many here, you are lying and committing a sin.

BTW, remaining silent won’t work with Little Boy Blue because he will hound you until you answer.

So, what do you do???

Me, personally, I would reply with a straight-forward “no,” because it is my opinion that Little Boy Blue nor anyone else has a right to know whether or not Jack and Jill were having an affair nor do they have a right to force you to betray the confidence that Jill placed in you. A lie is not just something that isn’t true, but is usually said to deceive others for a selfish personal gain. In the Nazi-at-the-door example, if you reply that there are indeed Jews in your basement then you become a willing participant in an intrinsically evil act, the murder of innocent people. All people do not have a “right” to know the answer to every question asked, and when questions are asked for the intention to commit an evil act, then one does not have to be a participant in it.

An example I heartily agree with is if a pregnant woman asked if I know where she can get an abortion. There could be an abortion mill across the street but I would unhesitatingly reply “no” to her question. To reply “yes” would make me a willing, active participant in the murder of her child.

Also, keep this in mind; a priest cannot be suspended from his duties for lying to protect the identity of someone in confession but he will certainly be suspended (and possibly excommunicated) for breaking the seal of confession.

There is certainly more to a lie than just saying something that isn’t “true;” lies of omission come to mind.

 

[Timothysis]

Another thing I just thought of; during World War II the future Pope John XXIII was in a basement in Constantinople printing up fake baptismal certificates to be given to Jews to avoid arrest by German agents. This work was carried out under the orders of Pope Pius XII himself. Would anyone suggest that these two holy men were involved in a “lie” by their actions of producing papers that were meant to deceive and mislead others?

 

[Rence]

And you seriously imagine you could say to them ‘nope, no Jews here, Mr Nazi Officer sir,’ and they’d just take your word for it and walk away? If so you’re dreaming.

Jews were kept in hiding by others for a while before being found out. Some actually escaped. They get an A for effort and I believe they were quite Blessed by God for putting themselves at risk by trying to save others.

 

[Rence]

In this senario I would say, “My conversations with Jill are between Jill and me. If you would like to talk to her, she’s over there”.

IMOHO, this situation isn’t worthy of covering up, nor would I get involved in such a drama by telling the truth. Little Boy Blue isn’t entitled to the truth, therefore, I won’t give it. But I wouldn’t lie about it either.

Here’s another scenario for consideration;

Jack and Jill work in an office and the rumor is going around that both of them, though married, are having an affair. One day Jill confides in you that she was indeed having an affair with Jack but that it is over and she deeply regrets her actions and thanks you for allowing herself to unburden her sorrow in your confidence. Later, Little Boy Blue, who saw you talking to Jill, comes up and says, "hey, did Jill tell you that she was having an affair with Jack?" How do you answer?

If you say, “yes she did,” then you have betrayed the confidence that Jill placed in you.

If you say, “maybe,” then you basically admitted the same and have betrayed Jill’s confidence.

If you say, “no,” then according to many here, you are lying and committing a sin.

BTW, remaining silent won’t work with Little Boy Blue because he will hound you until you answer.

So, what do you do???

Me, personally, I would reply with a straight-forward “no,” because it is my opinion that Little Boy Blue nor anyone else has a right to know whether or not Jack and Jill were having an affair nor do they have a right to force you to betray the confidence that Jill placed in you. A lie is not just something that isn’t true, but is usually said to deceive others for a selfish personal gain. In the Nazi-at-the-door example, if you reply that there are indeed Jews in your basement then you become a willing participant in an intrinsically evil act, the murder of innocent people. All people do not have a “right” to know the answer to every question asked, and when questions are asked for the intention to commit an evil act, then one does not have to be a participant in it.

An example I heartily agree with is if a pregnant woman asked if I know where she can get an abortion. There could be an abortion mill across the street but I would unhesitatingly reply “no” to her question. To reply “yes” would make me a willing, active participant in the murder of her child.

Also, keep this in mind; a priest cannot be suspended from his duties for lying to protect the identity of someone in confession but he will certainly be suspended (and possibly excommunicated) for breaking the seal of confession.

There is certainly more to a lie than just saying something that isn’t “true;” lies of omission come to mind.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well it is certainly a better answer than not answering at all. If you don’t answer at all you are basically saying “yes I have jews here” and if you say no, obviously you are saying no. They are likely to check your house either way but I wouldn’t be surprised if they checked it a bit harder if you didn’t respond.

You only have to alter the question slightly for silence to make no difference. The Nazi asks “Where are the Jews?” and demands an answer at gunpoint.

Anyone with any commonsense realises silence wouldn’t work - that would be inferred as an admission that there are Jews in the house unless you’re stupid enough to risk punishment for no reason.

 

[Doc_Keele]

But you would have blood on your hands - your naivety would cost you your life as well as theirs (because you’d be killed for trying to lie to the Nazis as well), rather than sparing a single thing.

In the Nazis-at-the-door case, I would say you weigh up the (certainly venial, probably extremely venial, but nonetheless to be avoided if at all possible as all sin, even the most venial, is to be avoided) sinful nature of the lie against the undoubtedly also sinful, but incomparably more serious, sin against charity and life of simply blurting out that the Jews are there knowing what will happen to them.

But not until and unless you’ve exhausted all other possibilities than telling a falsehood.

What you’re really doing here, among other things, is not acknowledging the independent agency of those who would kill the Jews. Is the fact that they are murderous thugs, to the extent that they would hound Jews out of people’s houses, in some way your fault? Maybe you can stop them by lying, which is a huge maybe at best - but are we required to make dubiously effective attempts to save life at absolutely any cost, including the cost of our immortal souls?

Isn’t your immortal soul worth more than anything else - including your own life? Are the lives of others truly worth sinning for? I’m sure the innocent families of the early Christian martyrs were persecuted for their family members’ refusals to renounce their Christian faith, did this fact prevent those martyrs from choosing truth over the lives of their families?

Personally, I’m one of those people who ALWAYS, but always, gets caught out if I try to lie, and in my 36 years on this planet have far more often than not found out that truthfulness doesn’t lead to the awful consequences we’d imagine. So perhaps that has influenced my opinion.

Think outsid the box, people - try bribing the Nazis, or physically fighting them

So killing the Nazis is preferable to lying to them???
Good Pro-Life message there:yup:

 

[LilyM]

Jews were kept in hiding by others for a while before being found out. Some actually escaped. They get an A for effort and I believe they were quite Blessed by God for putting themselves at risk by trying to save others.

Yes, they may have been kept in hiding for quite a while. I would suggest in most if not all cases that this would have been because the Nazis never suspected that the hiders were hiding anyone, let alone outright asking them.

I get the feeling the Nazis were more a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ kind of people, and that they were unlikely in the extreme to have simply taken anyone’s word for it that they weren’t hiding people.

As for John XXIII and Pius XIII - they were holy men indeed, but even being a saint doesn’t mean that one’s life was entirely free of every sort of venial sin. In fact, the saints being human, it is assumed that they all were guilty of venial sin and, as St Peter reminds us all just men do, fell ‘seven times a day’. This just might’ve been one of those occasions, very understandable though their actions are.

 

[LilyM]

So killing the Nazis is preferable to lying to them???
Good Pro-Life message there:yup:

Killing in self-defence or as an act of war is not only not sinful, for some it becomes a duty. There is no such corresponding duty to lie, nor any suggestion in the catechism or elsewhere that it is ever absolutely not a sin.

See, the problem is if one starts to say ‘lying (which the Church teaches is an inherent evil) is morally fine in certain circumstances’, then it follows logically that any action, regardless of whether it is described as inherently evil or not, is allowable if the alternative is worse.

In other words, one totally denies the Church teaching that there is such a thing as an inherently evil act - one that is not justified under any circumstances.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So killing the Nazis is preferable to lying to them???
Good Pro-Life message there:yup:

Um, the poster said nothing about killing the Nazis. But in my opinion, this would be self defense and for the defense of other human beings. I am adamantly prolife and I am against the death penalty in every case but one, and this situation is an example of that one case. If the only way to prevent the harming of innocent people is to kill the Nazis, then it’s appropriate to do so.

If there is any other way to protect the Jewish family you are protecting, then killing the soldiers is, of course, wrong.

Also, it’s a tragedy that people would be put into such a situation. Killing other human beings is a horrible action to take.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So killing the Nazis is preferable to lying to them???
Good Pro-Life message there:yup:

Um, the poster said nothing about killing the Nazis. But in my opinion, this would be self defense and for the defense of other human beings. I am adamantly prolife and I am against the death penalty in every case but one, and this situation is an example of that one case. If the only way to prevent the harming of innocent people is to kill the Nazis, then it’s appropriate to do so. This is prolife.

If there is any other way to protect the Jewish family, then killing the soldiers is, of course, wrong.

Also, it’s a tragedy that people would be put into such a situation. Killing other human beings is a horrible action to take.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Um, the poster said nothing about killing the Nazis

We can reasonably presume the only reasonable way to resist the armed soldiers of an occupying force would be to use a level of force that would at minimum risk killing them. It’s not a great leap.

But in my opinion, this would be self defense and for the defense of other human beings. I am adamantly prolife and I am against the death penalty in every case but one, and this situation is an example of that one case. If the only way to prevent the harming of innocent people is to kill the Nazis, then it’s appropriate to do so. This is prolife

It’s pro-life to kill someone when lying to them might achieve the same end? How bizarre!

 

[kage_ar]

As most of the vocal posters here would be so afraid of offending their work buddy that they would attend the buddy’s invalid marriage, I doubt that the courage to join undeground resistance hiding Jews would suddenly blossom from such lack of conviction.

 

[rusty20]

I think that one of the things we need to spend more time considering is whether or not every act of speaking a false statement is “lying”. As has been pointed out already, not every act of killing is “murder” and not every act of taking is “stealing.”

Lying, stealing, and murder are always wrong, regardless of circumstance (though, individual culpability can vary), but moral theology already makes distinctions between murder and self-defense and between stealing and taking a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Thus, it does not seem that unreasonable to think that there might be some similar distinction between lying and telling the Nazis that you haven’t seen any Jews.

Since probably none of us here are moral theologians by training, we should recognize that we may not find the answer on this thread.

I agree completely. A few pages back, someone defined lying as something along the lines of “withholding the truth from one who deserves it.” Clearly, a Nazi does NOT deserve to know where the Jews are hiding.

If we have a CORRECT understanding of what it is to lie (which is not the same as simply refusing to portray the truth or reality of a situation) then we can rightly determine whether or not various actions are acceptable.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s another scenario for consideration;

Thank you for giving us some other scenarios to ponder beyond the Nazis-at-the-door scenario.

You bring to my mind some other examples, mainly those in professions who are legally obligated to confidentiality. I know people who work in various social services who are legally obligated to silence. Thus, someone may be talking to them about how so-and-so got an abortion when they know that they actually had the baby and gave it up for adoption. And yet they cannot correct this defamation of character.

I know that many have been advocating silence and artful dodges to avoid saying any words that are untrue in the most literal sense. Certainly, we should try to go that route if at all possible, but I’m not sure that’s always an option. Some of us just aren’t that clever when we are caught off-guard with a point-blank question by someone who has no right to that information. For me, to answer with anything more than a curt “No” in those types of situations would be a dead give-away.

I am enjoying this discussion on lying. I think it’s one of the sins that has not received much attention as of late. It’s good to think about it more and examine my conscience.

 

[rusty20]

I am enjoying this discussion on lying. I think it’s one of the sins that has not received much attention as of late. It’s good to think about it more and examine my conscience.

I enjoy this discussion as well. In one of my classes, we had this discussion and it was very fruitful. I think the issue truly hinges upon how we rightly define lying. If lying is any act of withholding or distorting truth or reality, then any number of acts which I would think acceptable and perhaps morally good (like the office affair scenario and the Nazi scenario) would be deemed morally evil. If we define lying as an act which withholds the truth from those who are, to put it one way, deserving of the truth, then some acts that look like lying can be properly understood as something else.

 

[Doc_Keele]

These sort of discussions just reinforce my position that I shouldn’t listen to certain people regardless of whether or not they do in fact represent the official Church position. Nothing on earth can possible prove to me that lying to save someone’s life is sinful, and any system that “proves” this must be the case must be inherently flawed.

 

[LittleSoldier]

We can reasonably presume the only reasonable way to resist the armed soldiers of an occupying force would be to use a level of force that would at minimum risk killing them. It’s not a great leap.

It is a leap. The poster said nothing about killing them. It’s a leap and actually quite a leap. It’s also putting words in someone’s mouth.

It’s pro-life to kill someone when lying to them might achieve the same end? How bizarre!

I noticed that you left out part of my post. Why leave it out? Why not respond to all of it? By leaving out the rest of my post you are twisting my words to make it appear radically different from what I actually stated. What a bizarre and uncharitable thing to do!

The part you left out is the following:

by LittleSoldier:
If there is any other way to protect the Jewish family, then killing the soldiers is, of course, wrong.

Also, it’s a tragedy that people would be put into such a situation. Killing other human beings is a horrible action to take.

I added the bolding so that you wouldn’t miss it.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I think it is a leap to imagine you can resist members of the Wehrmacht armed with Schmeissers without considerable force. As for missing out irrelevant parts of your posts when responding, you really are trying hard to manufacturea problem where none exists
More faux umbrage

 

[LittleSoldier]

As most of the vocal posters here would be so afraid of offending their work buddy that they would attend the buddy’s invalid marriage, I doubt that the courage to join undeground resistance hiding Jews would suddenly blossom from such lack of conviction.

I’m sorry but I am very confused. What marriage? What buddy? Do you have a post number? I must have missed this part of the thread.

Holy Mother, please protect
all unborn children today and those
that fight for their right to life.