Is it ever OK to lie?

[Laurie_Gibson]

Help everyone, I am supposed to deal with this question in a talk I have to give to my class and I would like to know what the correct Catholic answer might be. I have tried ‘asking’ but they have not choosen my question - too busy on others I suppose.

I know that the Natural Law teachings of the Catholic Church says that lying is wrong.
I also know that you are not allowed to do wrong in order to bring about a good.

[So, for example, a woman is not allowed the wrong of an abortion because she is very poor and wants to do the best for her existing family. The only situation where an abortion is allowed is if, say, the woman was being treated for a life-threatening condition which had, the abortion as an unintended side-effect.

Suppose the Mafia demand of me the whereabouts of my neighbour. If I lie to save their lives I have done evil [lying[ in order to do good [save life]. The lie is not a side-effect. So it seems I must either tell a lie and my neighbours die or I must refuse to answer in which case I die!

Have I got this right?

Thanks for anyone who can put me straight…

Laurie Gibson

 

[shondrea]

Lying is always by itself immoral, but sometimes, it is the lesser of two evils. I would stand by my decision to lie about hiding Jews in my house from the Nazis. for example

 

[Rascalking]

Lying is always by itself immoral, but sometimes, it is the lesser of two evils. I would stand by my decision to lie about hiding Jews in my house from the Nazis. for example

We just had a long thread about this a few weeks ago, and I said the same thing (literally, I used the same situation)-that lying to a Nazi to hide a Jewish family would be appropriate.

Lying to your wife/girlfriend when she says, “Does this make me look fat?” Is also totally moral…not to mention a good idea for your personal safety!

 

[shondrea]

I believe it may have been you I was recalling then! (I find myself often very inspired/humoured by your posts, they’re always nice to read)

I agree. I’m pretty sure I’d tell my best galpal that she looked fine in orange, because…darn it, she hits hard!

 

[Bookcat]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."280 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."281

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.

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. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Lying is intrinsically evil. All intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

The reason that lying is always immoral is that the act of lying is inherently directed at an evil moral object: the deprivation of truth from an assertion. God is always offended by lying because God is Truth.

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful** to tolerate a lesser moral evil** in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 14.

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.”
(Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

 

[Bookcat]

[So, for example, a woman is not allowed the wrong of an abortion because she is very poor and wants to do the best for her existing family. The only situation where an abortion is allowed is if, say, the woman was being treated for a life-threatening condition which had, the abortion as an unintended side-effect.

Laurie Gibson

direct abortion is murder… abortion is not allowed to save a woman as a direct act…but it can be accepted as as an unintended side effect when one say…removes the cancerous uterus that will kill her…
[/quote]

 

[Joe_5859]

Lying is always a sin. However, I might question whether the example you give qualifies as lying. We have no obligation to give information to those with no right to know it. Perhaps we could call it misdirection.

 

[hellopeople]

Wait, so according to the church, it would have been a sin to lie to the Nazis?..that is so wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

Suppose the Mafia demand of me the whereabouts of my neighbour. If I lie to save their lives I have done evil [lying[ in order to do good [save life]. The lie is not a side-effect. So it seems I must either tell a lie and my neighbours die or I must refuse to answer in which case I die!

Have I got this right?

Thanks for anyone who can put me straight…

Laurie Gibson

1. It may be the case that there is more involved here than we have figured out…that the moral object here is somehow not a lie but something else…just as taking needed food by a hungry person who is being unreasonably refused it …can be by definition…not the moral object called theft. it is something else…(for it is never right to steal…but not all ‘taking’ is stealing…(see the Catechism here–it is NOT the circumstance that changes things…it is is a different moral object …for a circumstance can never change an intrinsic evil into a good). So in a similar way it may be argued PERHAPS that we are dealing not with a lie but with something else…but the Church has not weighed in on this per se…
2. But given that it is a lie. Yes it is a sin. A venial sin. One can say a very very very slight one…hardly hanging onto its grip on existence…

But if one can …one can use discrete language or a correct mental reservation and thus not sin.

If one is weak and is unable to do this and end up lying to save the persons life…it will be a very slight venial sin but the circumstances while they can never make an intrinsic evil into good…they can lessen the culpability…so it would be a very very slight venial sin which we would turn to the mercy of God.

This is not to say ‘it is ok to lie’ but just to realize that given the fallen nature of things…and the evil of such as the Nazi’s or Mafia …it may happen that one sins in a very small way. As the Church teaches…without a special grace from God we will still have some venial sins in this life (we eat too much ice cream…or slip into a small lie partly by accident …or we get a bit angry in a disorded way…or we neglect some duty that is not grave)…we are IN CHRIST and so are saints…but we still will have difficulty with some venial sins (of course we should avoid them as they come…but given the state of things…some will come). It does not make venial sins …ok…but we can have the humility of turning right away to God and asking his mercy. And God knowing what happened…will wipe it away in a moment.

Does this mean that the end justifies the means? No. It does not. It would still be it seems a slight wrong …a slight sin.

But we have to be realistic…there is a way that is possible to avoid any sin (see CCC) but since I am weak when it comes to ice cream…I may be weak when it comes to this too. and I may be not good at using language. Thankfully God would understand my weakness…and whatever slight sin there is…he will I think readily remove…

We live in a fallen world…and when trying to do good in one virtue…we can easily sin against another…it does not make it right…we still need to avoid the deliberate venial sins too! But I think it is not likely that I will sin perhaps with too much Ice Cream at Dinner and then tell the truth to the Nazi’s (etc) at the door…a hour later …

(and then again as said in 1 …it may be that it is not a lie)

(also remember we hid lots of Jews during WWII)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium teaches that lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral, and that intention and circumstances can never change the moral object.

positions that are contrary to magisterial teaching on lying and on intrinsic evil

1. that lying can be moral with a good intention
2. that lying can be moral in dire circumstances
3. that whether or not an act is lying depends on the intention or the circumstances
4. that intention or circumstances can change the moral object
5. that lying is transformed into a different type of act whenever the person to whom we are speaking does not deserve to be told the truth
6. that lying is moral when it is the lesser of two evils

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. It may be the case that there is more involved here than we have figured out…that the moral object here is somehow not a lie but something else…just as taking needed food by a hungry person who is being unreasonably refused it …can be by definition…not the moral object called theft. it is something else…(for it is never right to steal…but not all ‘taking’ is stealing…(see the Catechism here–it is NOT the circumstance that changes things…it is is a different moral object …for a circumstance can never change an intrinsic evil into a good). So in a similar way it may be argued PERHAPS that we are dealing not with a lie but with something else…but the Church has not weighed in on this per se…

The CCC and Veritatis Splendor are sufficient to establish the teaching that lying is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. There is no basis in Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium for the claim that maybe some deliberate assertions of falsehoods are really not lies, but something else.

In the case of expropriation versus theft, the act of expropriation does not have the same moral object as theft because God is the first owner of all things and because the goods of this life have a common ownership in addition to personal ownership. Such is not the case for truth and falsehood.

God is Truth, therefore all lying offends him. Even dire circumstances cannot cause a lie to become something else, some other type of act with a different moral object.

The case of Nazis seeking the lives of Jews is an extreme example, which people use to conclude that lying is not always wrong. Next they conclude that the various lies that they wish to tell in their own lives, in order to avoid some unpleasant circumstance, is also not always immoral. The extreme example is used to establish a principle which is then used to justify all manner of lies, whenever the person judges that it is more expedient to lie. This approach is used in order to justify rejecting Catholic teaching on ethics.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The Magisterium teaches that lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral, and that intention and circumstances can never change the moral object

If that is indeed the Magisterium’s position, then it is wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

The CCC and Veritatis Splendor are sufficient to establish the teaching that lying is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. There is no basis in Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium for the claim that maybe some deliberate assertions of falsehoods are really not lies, but something else.

In the case of expropriation versus theft, the act of expropriation does not have the same moral object as theft because God is the first owner of all things and because the goods of this life have a common ownership in addition to personal ownership. Such is not the case for truth and falsehood.

God is Truth, therefore all lying offends him. Even dire circumstances cannot cause a lie to become something else, some other type of act with a different moral object.

The case of Nazis seeking the lives of Jews is an extreme example, which people use to conclude that lying is not always wrong. Next they conclude that the various lies that they wish to tell in their own lives, in order to avoid some unpleasant circumstance, is also not always immoral. The extreme example is used to establish a principle which is then used to justify all manner of lies, whenever the person judges that it is more expedient to lie. This approach is used in order to justify rejecting Catholic teaching on ethics.

I will leave it for the Church to decide if there is another object here. I did not say there was. There *may *be.

A *lie *of course is always a sin.

And as the Church teaches…a circumstance can lessen the sin of the person who tells the lie.

In the case of the Nazi’s at the door…the guilt would seem to be reduced from a venial sin to a very very very slight venial sin. Not saying it is ok to lie. It is not. Hopefully we can have the kind of careful words the ccc speaks of and not lie. But rather that the guilt would be very very slight here…almost to the edge of existence. And if faced with such…God will be very merciful if one should have this slight sin…(again readers would have to read the whole of what I wrote above to understand me here)…not that the end justifies the means…it does not…but the mercy of God will meet us if we should sin with slight venial sin here…much quicker than for my eating too much ice cream. This is my reflection here upon the Nazi’ at the door.

 

[hellopeople]

The case of Nazis seeking the lives of Jews is an extreme example, which people use to conclude that lying is not always wrong. Next they conclude that the various lies that they wish to tell in their own lives, in order to avoid some unpleasant circumstance, is also not always immoral. The extreme example is used to establish a principle which is then used to justify all manner of lies, whenever the person judges that it is more expedient to lie. This approach is used in order to justify rejecting Catholic teaching on ethics.

Well, it is a GREAT point. Saying that it is moral and with church teachings to give up people to get slaughtered because you don’t want to lie seems wrong…well it doesn’t seem wrong, it IS wrong.

 

[kage_ar]

One is not required to ANSWER the Nazis when they ask. Silence would be the moral response.

 

[hellopeople]

If that is indeed the Magisterium’s position, then it is wrong.

Are you talking about the Magisterium being wrong or lying being wrong? Anyway, I agree with you if you say that the Magisterium is wrong.

 

[hellopeople]

In the case of the Nazi’s at the door…the guilt would seem to be reduced from a venial sin to a very very very slight venial sin. Not saying it is ok to lie. It is not. Hopefully we can have the kind of careful words the ccc speaks of and not lie. But rather that the guilt would be very very slight here…almost to the edge of existence. And if faced with such…God will be very merciful if one should have this slight sin…(again readers would have to read the whole of what I wrote above to understand me here)…not that the end justifies the means…it does not…but the mercy of God will meet us if we should sin with slight venial sin here…much quicker than for my eating too much ice cream. This is my reflection here upon the Nazi’ at the door.

I refuse to believe that lying to save innocent people’s lives is a sin AT ALL. So it would have been better, in the eyes of the church, to give up Jews for slaughter? That is absurd.

lol @ the end not justifying the means…the end is saving innocent people’s lives and the means is lying to horrible, evil, and vial people looking to kill innocent people. Yes…the ends definitely don’t justify the means in that case

THANK GOD THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HARBORED JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE CHURCH!!!

 

[hellopeople]

One is not required to ANSWER the Nazis when they ask. Silence would be the moral response.

You really think that you could just not answer nazi’s? You think they would just let you not answer? Are you serious…I can only imagine you would get smashed with the butt of a rifle in your face and then get asked again.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In the case of the Nazi’s at the door…the guilt would seem to be reduced from a venial sin to a very very very slight venial sin. Not saying it is ok to lie. It is not. Hopefully we can have the kind of careful words the ccc speaks of and not lie. But rather that the guilt would be very very slight here…almost to the edge of existence.

Can an intrinsically evil venial sin, done with full knowledge and full deliberation, become a very very very slight sin, almost to the edge of not being a sin, due to good intention and dire circumstances?

No. This approach is a version of proportionalism, the idea that we can weigh the good against the bad in any act, so as to justify that act. The only difference between this approach and proportionalism is that the act is still said to be a ‘sin’, although the very meaning of the word sin becomes lost when it is called very very very slight…to the edge of existence.

An intrinsically evil venial sin, done with full knowledge and full deliberation, has significant moral weight because it is done with full knowledge and full deliberation, and because the moral object is evil. Any venial sin committed with full knowledge and full consent is not a vanishingly slight sin.

In another example, if the moral object were gravely disordered, e.g. murder, then no intention or circumstance could make the act less than a grave sin; and the act would be an actual mortal sin if also done with full knowledge and full deliberation.

In the case of a sin with an evil moral object that is not gravely disordered, but is done with full knowledge and full deliberation, the sin is venial, but it does not become a very very slight sin, regardless of intention and circumstances, because intention and circumstances cannot change the moral object, and because the knowledge and deliberation are full.

The root of this moral problem is whether or not an act with an evil moral object can ever be moral.

Can it be moral if the intention is good, or if the circumstances are dire? No. Can it be almost moral and only a very very slight sin in dire circumstances? No. Can the moral object be changed by intention or circumstances? No. Can the moral object be said to be good if the intrinsically evil act is accompanied by an act that is good? No. Can we say that the intrinsically evil act is not an act at all because it is accompanied by a good act? No. Can we combine a set of acts into one act so that we can ignore any evil moral objects? No.

Negative moral precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts do not allow for any legitimate exception. There is no room for any creativity in order to devise a contrary determination. The only option is to obey the moral law and refrain from the intrinsically evil act.