Is it ever OK to lie?

[virbots]

“The point of considering hypothetical situations, perhaps very improbable ones, seems to be to elicit from yourself or someone else a hypothetical decision to do something of a bad kind. I don’t doubt this has the effect of predisposing people–who will never get into the situations for which they have made hypothetical choices-‑to consent to similar bad actions, or to praise and flatter those who do them, so long as their crowd does so too, when the desperate circumstances imagined don’t hold at all.” – G. E. M. Anscombe

The question of whether it is OK to lie to Nazis is a “desperate circumstance” that I’m guessing no one in this forum has ever encountered, nor ever will. But perhaps if you can convince yourself that lying is OK in this extreme and unlikely case, you will justify it for less serere circumstances that you actually do encounter. That’s really what this discussion is about; whether you realize it or not.

 

[Timothysis]

The question of whether it is OK to lie to Nazis is a “desperate circumstance” that I’m guessing no one in this forum has ever encountered, nor ever will. But perhaps if you can convince yourself that lying is OK in this extreme and unlikely case, you will justify it for less serere circumstances that you actually do encounter. That’s really what this discussion is about; whether you realize it or not.

The question is, is it a “lie” to mislead someone in regards to a situation that they have no right to be a party to in order to commit an intrinsically evil act? I maintain that it is not a “lie,” a lie being a statement in variance with the mind and Catholic philosophers and theologians have long since recognized the necessity of mental reservation. It is a lie to tell a police officer that the light was yellow when you know it was really red. It is not a lie to reserve the truth in order to prevent an injustice being done, especially in regards to the taking of innocent human life. Again, as St. Raymound says, "if his conscience tells him that this is the proper answer to give, then he will not go against his conscience, and so he will not sin…"

How many parents are guilty of a lie by telling their children that Santa Claus will visit on the 25th of December? Can you, by this example, "convince yourself that lying is OK?"

 

[Doc_Keele]

…if you can convince yourself that lying is OK in this extreme and unlikely case, you will justify it for less serere circumstances that you actually do encounter. That’s really what this discussion is about; whether you realize it or not.

No,it isn’t. All it’s doing is proving that absolutism doesn’t work in all circumstances.
The “slippery slope” argument is often a fallacy, and it is in this case. Several people have provided a non-arbitrary distinction for the permissible lie.

Trying to defend the indefensible is quite brave, but futile.

 

[Sophia86]

I’m not overly sure about the scenarios that you gave, however this link that I stumbled across might help with your talk that you have to give Is it ever OK to lie? – Sun & Shield. The link starts with, “There have been a few scriptures that I’ve read over the years that cause me to scratch my head because they seem to be contradictory to what is taught in other places in the scriptures. A few of these scriptures are instances where it seems that lying is condoned by God. Here are three instances that come to mind:”

It then goes on to give a few good examples of when God has shown that he is *pleased *with someone not telling the truth, and in the first two examples, the individuals were rewarded. Nevertheless I am aware that in various parts of the Bible, it is apparent that God dislikes lying - and rightly so - In general lying isn’t a good practice to partake in without reason.

Subsequent to the apparent approval, and converse disapproval shown for liars however, I am understanding of your confusion in this matter. I wholeheartedly believe that it all depends on the context of the lie and the given situation that the concerned individual is in.

I hope this helps

 

[virbots]

Let me ask the following to those who think it is OK to lie in this instance. Is it not just OK but my duty to lie. In other words, would it be a sin for me to not lie. Would it be a sin if I simply remained silent in the face of questioning? Why or why not?

 

[virbots]

*Doc Keele Said: No,it isn’t. All it’s doing is proving that absolutism doesn’t work in all circumstances. *

You’re actually helping to prove my point. Why would someone want go through this strawman exercise (that will never happen to him) if not to prove to himself that “absolutism doesn’t work in all circumstances”? Why is that important to him? Why would he want to believe that?

He wants to believe that so he has an excuse to justify lying in less severe but more likely scenarios, such as when his wife asks “do you like my dress?” Soon he’ll justify lying if not doing so is at all inconvenient. And once he’s well established as a liar, he will then start justifying stealing. Because he’ll firmly believe that the ends justify the means, anything is possible.

 

[Timothysis]

He wants to believe that so he has an excuse to justify lying in less severe but more likely scenarios, such as when his wife asks “do you like my dress?” Soon he’ll justify lying if not doing so is at all inconvenient. And once he’s well established as a liar, he will then start justifying stealing. Because he’ll firmly believe that the ends justify the means, anything is possible.

If you believe that telling your wife that you like her new dress is a lie and that it is displeasing to Christ, then we have seriously different notions of what a “lie” is.

To me, a lie is an attempt to subvert Justice for a personal gain in one form or another. To tell your wife that you like her dress when you really don’t has more to do with Charity and love of spouse than subverting Justice, anymore than telling your kids that Santa brought those nice, new toys on Christmas morning.

Also, only a dishonest mind would attempt to justify stealing because one is allowed to withhold the truth from those who have no right to it. As said before, the “slippery slope” argument does not work.

 

[virbots]

Tim said: To me, a lie is an attempt to subvert Justice for a personal gain in one form or another

I prefer the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition: “A deliberate falsehood.”

 

[Timothysis]

Tim said: To me, a lie is an attempt to subvert Justice for a personal gain in one form or another

I prefer the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition: “A deliberate falsehood.”

Then you are a liar if you ever tell your children about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Now, that clears everything up completely , doesn’t it???

 

[virbots]

(In response to Tim)
Absent from this discussion so far is the gravity of the sin. I’m not going to criticize someone who tells their kids there’s a tooth fairy or tells his wife he likes her dress when he really doesn’t. Nor would I criticize someone who lies about the Jews in his basement to the Nazis. These examples are at most very minor faults and not comparable at all to a grievous sin such as abortion. But that shouldn’t change the definition of what a lie is. These are still deliberate falsehoods, and therefore they are lies. And there are always alternatives to lying.

Personally, I don’t tell my children things I don’t myself believe to be true. But sometimes I won’t tell them the answer when they ask a question.

For example, I will leave a dollar under their pillow when they lose a tooth. When they ask, “was that mommy, daddy or the tooth fairy”, I don’t tell them it was the tooth fairy, nor do I tell them it was me. I simply ask how they think the dollar got there. This is an alternative to lying that also encourages them to think for themselves yet still allows them to get a dollar for losing a tooth like all their friends do.

But getting back to my original post, my main concern here is that people reading this discussion come away with the belief that the ends justify the means, which is a dangerous thing to believe and contrary to Church teaching. Believing such a thing has led many into serious sin.

The Jews in the basement scenario is a far-fetched example deliberately constructed to make “ends never justify the means” seem absurd. It combines a minor fault (a lie) with a major consequence (people dying in gas chambers).

Though this example admittedly makes “ends never justify the means” seem absurd, it is nevertheless still true. This truth (ends never justify the means) is not alone among Church Teachings that seems absurd yet is nevertheless still true. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist comes to mind.

 

[Timothysis]

But getting back to my original post, my main concern here is that people reading this discussion come away with the belief that the ends justify the means, which is a dangerous thing to believe and contrary to Church teaching. Believing such a thing has led many into serious sin.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;
*
“There is some difference of opinion among the Fathers of the Christian Church. Origen quotes Plato and approves of his doctrine on this point (Stromata, VI). He says that a man who is under the necessity of lying should diligently consider the matter so as not to exceed. He should gulp the lie as a sick man does his medicine. He should be guided by the example of Judith, Esther, and Jacob. If he exceed, he will be judged the enemy of Him who said, “I am the Truth.” St. John Chrysostom held that it is lawful to deceive others for their benefit, and** Cassian taught that we may sometimes lie as we take medicine, driven to it by sheer necessity.**”*

The Jews in the basement scenario is a far-fetched example deliberately constructed to make “ends never justify the means” seem absurd. It combines a minor fault (a lie) with a major consequence (people dying in gas chambers).

Actually, the original scenario is from a long, long time ago, debated by doctors, scholars and theologians and begins like this: “If a man is hid in your house, and his life is sought by murderers, and they come and ask you whether he is in the house…” While some scholars say that one is still not permitted to “lie,” St Raymound says

“The owner of the house where the man lies concealed, on being asked whether he is there, should as far as possible say nothing. If silence would be equivalent to betrayal of the secret, then he should turn the question aside by asking another — How should I know? — or something of that sort. Or, says St. Raymund, he may make use of an expression with a double meaning, an equivocation such as: Non est hic, id est, Non comedit hic — or something like that. An infinite number of examples induced him to permit such equivocations, he says. Jacob, Esau, Abraham, Jehu, and the Archangel Gabriel made use of them. Or, he adds, you may say simply that the owner of the house ought to deny that the man is there, and, if his conscience tells him that this is the proper answer to give, then he will not go against his conscience, and so he will not sin. Nor is this direction contrary to what Augustine teaches, for if he gives that answer he will not lie, for he will not speak against his mind (Summa, lib. I, De Mendacio).”

The Church herself allows for what is called mental reservation, so it would seem that the issue is not as black and white as you would like to make it.

 

[virbots]

Tim- Since, as you say, even the doctors of the Church can’t agree, I think we’re allowed to disagree as well.

And thanks for doing that bit of research. I’m a huge fan of research in these types of discussions (though I don’t like the practice of cutting and pasting huge sections of the Catechism or some other Church document as some posters do).

It sounds like even those that say it is not always a sin to lie, emphasize that even in this extreme circumstance, you should weigh the matter carefully in your mind and as much as possible try to avoid a direct lie.

Note also that they’re not redefining the word lie on the basis of them believing it is sometimes not a sin; i.e., lie still means “deliberate falsehood”, just not a sin in every circumstance.

BTW, I don’t believe that everything is black and white as you suggest. I believe some things are black and white and some are not. The danger, I think, is when people believe nothing is black and white and that everything is relative. Hopefully, we can at least agree on that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I’ve never heard of this, either. And since reading the posts on this I have become a bit concerned. I haven’t gone to a whole lot of weddings, but I went to one on the Queen Mary and I’m pretty sure that isn’t a Catholic Church. My cousin was getting married. I don’t know if the marriage was valid or is valid. I never even thought about that. I got an invitation and I went. And I did notice that a lot of people there were serious practicing Catholics.

Is it my place to judge whether a marriage is valid in the eyes of God? Should I send a questionnaire to the couple getting married so that I can determine if what they are doing isn’t a sin? This has me quite confused. I’ve never run across this before.

I’ll ask my priest about it the next time I go to Confession.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“The point of considering hypothetical situations, perhaps very improbable ones, seems to be to elicit from yourself or someone else a hypothetical decision to do something of a bad kind. I don’t doubt this has the effect of predisposing people–who will never get into the situations for which they have made hypothetical choices-‑to consent to similar bad actions, or to praise and flatter those who do them, so long as their crowd does so too, when the desperate circumstances imagined don’t hold at all.” – G. E. M. Anscombe

The question of whether it is OK to lie to Nazis is a “desperate circumstance” that I’m guessing no one in this forum has ever encountered, nor ever will. But perhaps if you can convince yourself that lying is OK in this extreme and unlikely case, you will justify it for less serere circumstances that you actually do encounter. That’s really what this discussion is about; whether you realize it or not.

You may be right, but I don’t think so. What I’m seeing is people concerned about the lives of other people and wondering if lying is really wrong in that specific case. I haven’t seen any rationalization of lying in normal day-to-day circumstances.

As for myself, I don’t lie. I’ve fallen into that trap before and I won’t fall into it again. It’s not because I’m special or extra-good or saintly or anything like that (because I’m not) - it’s because I know I have a weakness for it and lying gets easier every time it’s done. The only way I can deal with this problem is to not lie. At all. However, if it came down to protecting the health, welfare, and/or life of another person, the rules do change.

I would lie and then I would talk to my priest about it during Confession. God knows what is in my heart and my reasons for what I do.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[LittleSoldier]

*Doc Keele Said: No,it isn’t. All it’s doing is proving that absolutism doesn’t work in all circumstances. *

You’re actually helping to prove my point. Why would someone want go through this strawman exercise (that will never happen to him) if not to prove to himself that “absolutism doesn’t work in all circumstances”? Why is that important to him? Why would he want to believe that?

He wants to believe that so he has an excuse to justify lying in less severe but more likely scenarios, such as when his wife asks “do you like my dress?” Soon he’ll justify lying if not doing so is at all inconvenient. And once he’s well established as a liar, he will then start justifying stealing. Because he’ll firmly believe that the ends justify the means, anything is possible.

I don’t think your conclusion about why a person goes through this sort of exercise is logical. In my everyday life I don’t lie. I don’t. And I’m not lying now when I state that. But I am posting in this thread. You don’t really know why I’m here, do you? It could be that I have Jewish people in my family or that my ethnic background is mostly German or that I have family that fought in WWII on the Allied side, or just that it’s interesting to me as a conundrum of sorts.

The rules change when a human being’s life is on the line. It’s important to discuss this, not because we want to rationalize our daily behavior and think that if we do so somehow God will fall for it. Because He won’t, will He? As far as I know, the posters in this thread are simply discussing a hypothetical situation and what their responses and actions would be if they were faced with this situation.

There are some of us here (including myself) who have lied (although I prefer the word “untruth”) in order to save someone’s life. I’ve done it several times. This is not in my everyday life but in a specific instance when someone who was helpless needed me.

Discussing this doesn’t have to mean people are trying to justify their own lying in their normal, everyday life.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

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.

A 5 year old girl asks you “Aren’t I beautiful.”…as she spins in a pirouette in a pink little polka dot dress, she wears no ribbon, she has no hair. She is a survivor of a terrible fire… and you twist the truth to comment on her beautiful dress, or her soul, but you do not tell her the “Whole” truth or do you?.. I think I would bend this truth and consequently lie… my intent is honest and although contrary to justice is charitable. Yet it would be a sin…I would have lied, but this little girl will get to deal with “TRUTH” later in life, she may already have had to… I would pay for that lie …for a smile and a happy heart it would be worth the sin I would commit against the “Honest” and ugly truth. Maybe I would be forgiven, but maybe not I might have to spend a little more time in Purgatory…

 

[virbots]

I’ve never heard of this, either. And since reading the posts on this I have become a bit concerned. I haven’t gone to a whole lot of weddings, but I went to one on the Queen Mary and I’m pretty sure that isn’t a Catholic Church. My cousin was getting married. I don’t know if the marriage was valid or is valid. I never even thought about that. I got an invitation and I went. And I did notice that a lot of people there were serious practicing Catholics.

This is a frequent question on Catholic Answers Live and I’ll just summarize how the apologists always answer this:

1. non-Catholic Christian marriages between a baptized non-Catholic and another non-Catholic (whether baptized or not) is presumed valid by the Catholic Church until proven otherwise. Therefore Catholics may attend such a wedding.
2. If either the bride or the groom is a Catholic (whether practicing or not) then a non-Catholic marriage is invalid. When you attend a wedding, you are a witness to that marriage. Therefore a Catholic should not attend a wedding he knows to be invalid.

In answer to previous poster on this subject: Doing something that makes you unpopular does not imply that the thing you did is wrong. Doing the right thing often takes courage precisely because it is unpopular. “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.” (John 15:18)

 

[LittleSoldier]

A 5 year old girl asks you “Aren’t I beautiful.”…as she spins in a pirouette in a pink little polka dot dress, she wears no ribbon, she has no hair. She is a survivor of a terrible fire… and you twist the truth to comment on her beautiful dress, or her soul, but you do not tell her the “Whole” truth or do you?.. I think I would bend this truth and consequently lie… my intent is honest and although contrary to justice is charitable. Yet it would be a sin…I would have lied, but this little girl will get to deal with “TRUTH” later in life, she may already have had to… I would pay for that lie …for a smile and a happy heart it would be worth the sin I would commit against the “Honest” and ugly truth. Maybe I would be forgiven, but maybe not I might have to spend a little more time in Purgatory…

Of course she is beautiful! All children of God are beautiful! Nobody would need to lie in this case.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a frequent question on Catholic Answers Live and I’ll just summarize how the apologists always answer this:

1. non-Catholic Christian marriages between a baptized non-Catholic and another non-Catholic (whether baptized or not) is presumed valid by the Catholic Church until proven otherwise. Therefore Catholics may attend such a wedding.
2. If either the bride or the groom is a Catholic (whether practicing or not) then a non-Catholic marriage is invalid. When you attend a wedding, you are a witness to that marriage. Therefore a Catholic should not attend a wedding he knows to be invalid.

In answer to previous poster on this subject: Doing something that makes you unpopular does not imply that the thing you did is wrong. Doing the right thing often takes courage precisely because it is unpopular. “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.” (John 15:18)

Thank you for this information. I bet it’s a frequent question! So now I know, although I don’t know if my cousin is or was Catholic. And I never thought about being a witness to an invalid marriage. It does make sense. It’s good to know what to do in the future. I appreciate your posting this information.

I do have one question, though. What if the groom was baptised and raised as a Catholic, but no longer considers himself to be one, doesn’t attend Mass and has no intention of raising his children in the Catholic Faith. Should I have attended my brother’s wedding?

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[virbots]

You don’t really know why I’m here, do you? It could be that I have Jewish people in my family or that my ethnic background is mostly German or that I have family that fought in WWII on the Allied side, or just that it’s interesting to me as a conundrum of sorts.

The rules change when a human being’s life is on the line. It’s important to discuss this, not because we want to rationalize our daily behavior and think that if we do so somehow God will fall for it. Because He won’t, will He? As far as I know, the posters in this thread are simply discussing a hypothetical situation and what their responses and actions would be if they were faced with this situation.

There are some of us here (including myself) who have lied (although I prefer the word “untruth”) in order to save someone’s life. I’ve done it several times. This is not in my everyday life but in a specific instance when someone who was helpless needed me.

Discussing this doesn’t have to mean people are trying to justify their own lying in their normal, everyday life.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You’re right that I don’t really know why anyone is here. And you’re right that my guess of true motives is just that, a guess. That guess may apply to only some or none at all in this discussion and I shouldn’t have written it. I apologize for making that remark.

And after thinking about your response, I now realize that situations in which a lie seems necessary to save a life is probably way more common than I initially thought.