Is it ever OK to lie?

[LittleSoldier]

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

Doc Keele, please try to understand that when you twist someone’s words, it makes them look bad and it causes confusion among other posters. I want to keep this thread on-topic and am trying my best to do so.

All I’m asking is that you not twist my words. I put a lot of effort into my posts and it bothers me when another forum member doesn’t acknowledge parts of my post which demonstrate my opinion on this very important topic. I have strong views on prolife issues and on any sin, including lying. I am enjoying this thread because I am reading others’ interesting views that have been (mostly) posted with charity.

It’s fine if you don’t agree with me. I don’t expect you to. But I am requesting that you please at least treat my posts as if they are as important as anyone else’s.

Holy Mother, please pray that
all unborn children will be safe
today.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I’m also enjoying this discussion. I’ve been in one other thread on lying and this one has been much better. I especially appreciate the various scenarios that have been presented; ones that I would never have even considered. It seems that “lying” is not a black and white issue at all.

I also want everyone to know that I appreciate the civility that has (mostly) been very apparent in this thread. It’s nice to be able to discuss an important topic in an atmosphere of charity.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I can’t remember where I read this, but it was on CAF just a few days ago. It might have been a question to an apologist. Someone said that a priest must be martyred instead of revealing what has been confessed to him. I was surprised by this and of course I realize that the penance the sinner must undergo would most likely involve turning him/herself in to the authorities if it were a case of murder, assault, etc.

I was surprised that priests who hear confessions actually take that confidentiality so seriously and I was pleased. But I do have a concern: what if someone tells a priest in Confession that he plans to kill his spouse? If the priest can’t divulge what has been said during Confession, what can he do? I suppose somehow the person who is being threatened could be warned anonymously, but I’m not sure of Church teaching.

I know this is a bit off-topic but the discussion on remaining silent to the Nazi soldiers made me think of this.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

That’s some mighty fine nut-shelling.

 

[Joe_5859]

I can’t remember where I read this, but it was on CAF just a few days ago. It might have been a question to an apologist. Someone said that a priest must be martyred instead of revealing what has been confessed to him. I was surprised by this and of course I realize that the penance the sinner must undergo would most likely involve turning him/herself in to the authorities if it were a case of murder, assault, etc.

I was surprised that priests who hear confessions actually take that confidentiality so seriously and I was pleased. But I do have a concern: what if someone tells a priest in Confession that he plans to kill his spouse? If the priest can’t divulge what has been said during Confession, what can he do? I suppose somehow the person who is being threatened could be warned anonymously, but I’m not sure of Church teaching.

I know this is a bit off-topic but the discussion on remaining silent to the Nazi soldiers made me think of this.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

Ah, the old “What-happens-if-someone-confesses-they-just-poisoned-the-wine-that-is-about-to-be-consecrated-and-used-at-Mass” dilemma.

You might check out what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Confession. Here is the portion that is relevant to your question:

These prohibitions, as well as the general obligation of secrecy, apply only to what the confessor learns through confession made as part of the sacrament. He is not bound by the seal as regards what may be told him by a person who, he is sure, has no intention of making a sacramental confession but merely speaks to him “in confidence”; prudence, however, may impose silence concerning what he learns in this way. Nor does the obligation of the seal prevent the confessor from speaking of things which he has learned outside confession, though the same things have also been told him in confession; here again, however, other reasons may oblige him to observe secrecy.

In the scenario you posited, it might be argued that, since you cannot confess a sin you haven’t yet committed (as it sort of implies that you’re not really contrite about it), the person really has no intention of making a sacramental confession and thus there is no seal.

I’m not a canon lawyer, though.

 

[kage_ar]

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.

The 47,912 posts about invalid marriages. My point is that many posters here are relativists who will not stand up for anything, yet, they want to shout if there were suddenly Nazi’s at the door, they would be the bravest of the brave.

Let’s find the Courage to be Catholic now, in the battles we face every day.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The 47,912 posts about invalid marriages. My point is that many posters here are relativists who will not stand up for anything, yet, they want to shout if there were suddenly Nazi’s at the door, they would be the bravest of the brave.

Let’s find the Courage to be Catholic now, in the battles we face every day.

OK, thanks. It sounds kind of like “bleeding heart” Catholics. We do need to stand up for our faith every single day and accept the little persecutions we are asked to face.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ah, the old “What-happens-if-someone-confesses-they-just-poisoned-the-wine-that-is-about-to-be-consecrated-and-used-at-Mass” dilemma.

You might check out what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Confession. Here is the portion that is relevant to your question:

In the scenario you posited, it might be argued that, since you cannot confess a sin you haven’t yet committed (as it sort of implies that you’re not really contrite about it), the person really has no intention of making a sacramental confession and thus there is no seal.

I’m not a canon lawyer, though.

I love your scenario! I’ve never heard that one before. Your post makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

Santa Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Timothysis]

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.

You aren’t seriously contending that the actions of both the future Pope John XXIII and Pope Pius XII were sinful for acting to defend innocent human life, are you??? The rationale behind that is mind boggling. It is akin to declaring it sinful to tell a pregnant woman that you don’t know the location of an abortion clinic when, in reality, you do.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Really? MOST of them? How many? Which ones? If they’ve publicly said so on the other threads then I must go and have a look.

I for one have never knowingly attended an invalid marriage, and hope and trust that I’d have the strength not to, as I’ve had to find in other difficult situations.

I’ve attended one, and one only, where I wasn’t 100% sure that it was valid (one party was Catholic but they married in a non-Catholic church). However, it’s neither my duty nor my right to barge into such a situation (with a distant relative, mind, not a buddy by any means) and conduct an inquisition as to whether they received the requisite dispensations. The party in question has more than enough other devout Catholic relatives whose task and duty that is.

 

[Timothysis]

An interesting read from the Catholic Encylcopedia regarding the subject of *mental reservation;
*

"All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies. Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason. If there is no good reason to the contrary, veracity requires all to speak frankly and openly in such a way as to be understood by those who are addressed. A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth."

In the Nazi-at-the-door example, one may employ mental reservation to say, “*there are no Jews here” *when the reality is that there are, but as this is a just cause to prevent the unwarranted and illicit taking of human life mental reservation may be employed, since this would be a case when the questioner does not have a right to the naked truth. In other words, since the questioner does not have a natural right to to seize these people for the intrinsically evil act of murder he does not have a right to the naked truth.

To quote St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry,

"I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other’s silence . Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say ‘He is not at home,’ or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods. "

 

[LilyM]

You aren’t seriously contending that the actions of both the future Pope John XXIII and Pope Pius XII were sinful for acting to defend innocent human life, are you??? The rationale behind that is mind boggling. It is akin to declaring it sinful to tell a pregnant woman that you don’t know the location of an abortion clinic when, in reality, you do.

I’m contending no such thing. I only contend that the mere fact they did them doesn’t mean the actions are morally good, or not possibly venial sins.

Again, inherently sinful means inherently sinful - not to be done for any reason. Lying (telling an untruth with the intention to deceive) IS inherently sinful.

Ours is NOT a faith where ends (however good) justify any and every means. If you start saying they do in this case, then you’re putting your foot onto a slippery slope which ends with there being no such thing as an inherently evil act, because ANY act can by your logic be justified if the end is good enough. Such is not Church teaching.

If one can lie in the right circumstances, then why not adulter in those same circumstances? Why not blaspheme? Why not abort and contracept? Why not deny being Christian? And why are other people’s lives more sacred than our own? Both are equally gifts of God. Suicide is (still) a grave sin alongside murder, after all. So why not lie if it will save MY life, or adulter, or abort, or deny being Christian?

 

[Timothysis]

I’m contending no such thing. I only contend that the mere fact they did them doesn’t mean the actions are morally good, or not possibly venial sins.

Again, inherently sinful means inherently sinful - not to be done for any reason. Lying (telling an untruth with the intention to deceive) IS inherently sinful.

Ours is NOT a faith where ends (however good) justify any and every means. If you start saying they do in this case, then you’re putting your foot onto a slippery slope which ends with there being no such thing as an inherently evil act, because ANY act can by your logic be justified if the end is good enough. Such is not Church teaching.

If one can lie in the right circumstances, then why not adulter in those same circumstances? Why not blaspheme? Why not abort and contracept? Why not deny being Christian? And why are other people’s lives more sacred than our own? Both are equally gifts of God. Suicide is (still) a grave sin alongside murder, after all. So why not lie if it will save MY life, or adulter, or abort, or deny being Christian?

It seems to me you create your own slippery slope. You ask "If one can lie in the right circumstances, then why not adulter in those same circumstances? Why not blaspheme? Why not abort and contracept? Why not deny being Christian?" I have never heard of one protecting innocent life from wrongdoers by committing adultery, blasphemy or by using contraception.

The question at hand, however, is singular and specific; is it moral to knowingly tell a falsehood to a wrongdoer when it will preserve the right of life of an innocent person. St. Raymund of Pennafort gave us the notion or mental reservation which allows a man to speak a falsehood on a certain, specific occasion because "if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. "

Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind. Since the statement “there are no Jews here” is NOT at variance with the mind of the speaker for the reason that his conscience will not allow him to be an active participant in the unjustified murder of a human being, then the speaker is free of sin because he has not spoken against his conscience.

A “slippery slope” argument does not bother me here because such arguments are used as a way of knowingly justifying behavior that is at variance with the mind instead of as a specific situation when one is confronted with protecting privileged information from those who have no right to know.

 

[LilyM]

It seems to me you create your own slippery slope. You ask "If one can lie in the right circumstances, then why not adulter in those same circumstances? Why not blaspheme? Why not abort and contracept? Why not deny being Christian?" I have never heard of one protecting innocent life from wrongdoers by committing adultery, blasphemy or by using contraception.

The question at hand, however, is singular and specific; is it moral to knowingly tell a falsehood to a wrongdoer when it will preserve the right of life of an innocent person. St. Raymund of Pennafort gave us the notion or mental reservation which allows a man to speak a falsehood on a certain, specific occasion because "if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. "

Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind. Since the statement “there are no Jews here” is NOT at variance with the mind of the speaker for the reason that his conscience will not allow him to be an active participant in the unjustified murder of a human being, then the speaker is free of sin because he has not spoken against his conscience.

A “slippery slope” argument does not bother me here because such arguments are used as a way of knowingly justifying behavior that is at variance with the mind instead of as a specific situation when one is confronted with protecting privileged information from those who have no right to know.

St Thomas Aquinas, and St Raymond of Penafort, formidable though they are, are not sources whose definition of lying in any way trumps that of the Catechism. They are not nearly as authoritative.

The Catechism simply says ‘lying is an untruth told with intent to deceive’. You may have other intents as well in the Nazis-at-the-door case, but the fact remains that telling them that there are no Jews in your house when there are Jews there is an untruth told with intent to deceive. A lie as the Catechism defines it. And the CCC nowhere authorises the telling untruths, nowhere. Although it permits the concealment of truth, by saying that some have no right to it (which is a different kettle of fish to saying that we are permitted to lie to them), which concealment can be done by half-truths (as opposed to UNtruths) or silence.

And no, people don’t use the saving of life as a reason to justify other sins (except, of course, abortion). For one thing they don’t need nearly such a great and obvious good as justification. This same slippery slope of ends justifying means leads them to accept even lesser goods - such as their own temporal happiness, their own pleasure or that of others, and so on - as justifications for things that are inherently evil.

Thus all the people who say to themselves ‘yes, I know my current marriage isn’t valid, but he/she is so much better a spouse to me than my ex, so much better as a step parent to my children, and he/she will get so terribly angry if I bring up how the Church views our relationship, and will leave us without the support we need - surely God doesn’t mean me to give up all these goods and cause all this distress?’

The answer, unequivocally, is yes He actually does, at least temporarily until such time as the marriage can be blessed, if not perhaps permanently.

 

[Timothysis]

St Thomas Aquinas, and St Raymond of Penafort, formidable though they are, are not sources whose definition of lying in any way trumps that of the Catechism. They are not nearly as authoritative.

The Catechism simply says ‘lying is an untruth told with intent to deceive’. You may have other intents as well in the Nazis-at-the-door case, but the fact remains that telling them that there are no Jews in your house when there are Jews there is an untruth told with intent to deceive. A lie as the Catechism defines it. And the CCC nowhere authorises the telling untruths, nowhere. Although it permits the concealment of truth, by saying that some have no right to it (which is a different kettle of fish to saying that we are permitted to lie to them), which concealment can be done by half-truths (as opposed to UNtruths) or silence.

And no, people don’t use the saving of life as a reason to justify other sins (except, of course, abortion). For one thing they don’t need nearly such a great and obvious good as justification. This same slippery slope of ends justifying means leads them to accept even lesser goods - such as their own temporal happiness, their own pleasure or that of others, and so on - as justifications for things that are inherently evil.

Thus all the people who say to themselves ‘yes, I know my current marriage isn’t valid, but he/she is so much better a spouse to me than my ex, so much better as a step parent to my children, and he/she will get so terribly angry if I bring up how the Church views our relationship, and will leave us without the support we need - surely God doesn’t mean me to give up all these goods and cause all this distress?’

The answer, unequivocally, is yes He actually does, at least temporarily until such time as the marriage can be blessed, if not perhaps permanently.

From the Catechism, bolded sections are by me:

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.

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.
*

It appears that 2488 and 2489 both recognize the fact that some things are not meant to be known by others, allowing "for making use of a discreet language" and judging *“whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it”
*. This seems to imply to me that the use of mental reservation in accord within the boundaries established by St Raymond of Penafort are allowable under the guise of “discreet language” as mentioned in 2489. It must be mentioned that St. Raymond’s concept of mental reservation is not free to be used in instances that pertain to a personal gain or advantage.

Also, it is not the purpose of the Catechism to explore the various situations that might arise in the course of everyday occurrences; it’s purpose is to expound upon a lie as a sin against Justice. Love of neighbor involves protecting innocent people from those who would do them harm unjustly; it is not an excuse to find a means to undermine every concept of Christian behavior.

 

[hellopeople]

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.

Do you not see the difference between saving lives and celebrating your friends wedding?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

As the one who set this thread going, may I make a brief comment?

It seems that if it is wrong to lie then we cannot tell the Nazis that there are no Jews in the house. We can refuse to answer or say, ‘there are no Jews in the cellar’ [They are actually in the attic] but a direct lie would be sinful. As many people have said this seems an extraordinary situation because it might well be that any response other than the lie would result in the Nazis searching the house and finding the Jews. The refusal to lie has resulted in the deaths of the Jews and the family hiding them.

You have three alteratives in response:

1] You can say that as you accept natural law morality, you just have to swallow the nasty pill - horrible as it seems a lie here is sinful. God must know best.
2] You can find someway to square telling the lie with natural law morality. This seems very hard to do. For example if you say that you need not tell the truth to people who have no right to it, all that follows is that it is OK to refuse to answer, not that you can deliberately mislead them.
3] You can say that if natural law morality says that it is wrong to lie in these circumstances then so much the worse for natural law morality. Of course that is why opponents of natural law morality point to examples like this.

All the best

Laurie Gibso

 

[kage_ar]

Do you not see the difference between saving lives and celebrating your friends wedding?

I know that if I won’t get up and walk across the street to pick up my mail, it is unlikely I will run a marathon for a reason that is seen as more “grand”.

The way to tell if someone will do the hard things is if first they have learned by doing the easy things.

One does not start a 6 year old off with trig, they first must learn 2+2+4.

Scripture says “you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many”.

We have to start with baby steps.

 

[hellopeople]

I know that if I won’t get up and walk across the street to pick up my mail, it is unlikely I will run a marathon for a reason that is seen as more “grand”.

The way to tell if someone will do the hard things is if first they have learned by doing the easy things.

One does not start a 6 year old off with trig, they first must learn 2+2+4.

Scripture says “you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many”.

We have to start with baby steps.

Not going to someone’s wedding because MY religion (not the religion of the people involved in the wedding) says it is not OK (and to be honest I have never, EVER heard of a Catholic not attending a wedding because it is “invalid” in real life, nor have I ever heard it even mentioned as a thought) is completely different than saving people’s lives.

Refusing to attend a marriage because you don’t think it is valid is not baby steps to morality…in my opinion it is baby steps to being holier than thou and being arrogant about your beliefs. Baby steps to being a moral person would be holding the door for people or just being more polite in day to day life. Saving people’s lives while risking your own is the epitome of righteousness and goodness…not going to a friends wedding and making them upset, uncomfortable, annoyed, and much less likely to ever consider coming to the church is NOT right or good. These things are completely different.

One of these things is only the right thing to do because the church says so (and I would imagine that any priest that I have ever talked to would tell me to go to this “invalid” marriage) and the other is the right thing to do under just about any moral system you can think of…completely different situation.

Also, in my opinion, not attending a wedding is not loving your neighbor as yourself. Actually it is the complete opposite, so I refuse to accept that teaching.

 

[Timothysis]

Saving people’s lives while risking your own is the epitome of righteousness and goodness…

Bravo.