Is lying always sinful?

[LilyM]

Very interesting thread.

I suppose my concern would be, would lying about the presence of Jewish toddlers (innocents) in your house to protect them from certain murder, be considered the type of lie that is condemned by God? Is not the act of hiding them there in the first place a form of deception? Is it sinful to hide them there? Perhaps I must come to terms with the fact that if an evil person asks me a question, even if my untruthful answer does not deny my faith, nor Christ, nor His teachings, but would most likely protect an innocent from evil…that it is still judged as an offensive sin. I’m open to that idea, but I’m not convinced yet.

Lily, earlier on, you said this…Do you not consider these lies themselves? “who the heck is Jane Doe” is an obvious attempt to deceive, indirectly. Is that not a lie?

God Bless

Getting someone drunk so they won’t search your house (or not thoroughly enough) doesn’t fit any definition of a lie. Neither does hiding someone. It may be in certain circumstances a crime, but not even that if the law against hiding them is an unjust law.

Neither does silence usually constitute a lie. Silence is just a refusal to answer to one who, as the catechism points out, in some situations has no right to the whole truth.

A lie, as per the catechism, is the speaking of a falsehood - saying ‘I don’t know who Jane Doe is’ would be speaking a falsehood. Asking ‘who is Jane Doe’ is NOT speaking a falsehood.

Asking questions to which you already know the answer is a rhetorical device - used constantly by lawyers and politicians and suchlike. They aren’t telling lies in the courtroom, they are just, as they are on some occasions entitled, not revealing all that they know.

Deception may be involved, possibly - but the obligation is only to avoid speaking untruth, and the Catechism itself says there are times when we can refrain from speaking the whole truth, or revealing all that we know, since not everyone is entitled to the WHOLE truth - as long as we don’ t speak something that is positively false.

Yes, it might be a fine distinction, so is the distinction between removing a fallopian tube containing an embryo (permissible) and aborting a baby (impermissible). Real life requires us to make fine distinctions sometimes, and the Church is pretty pragmatic about it.

 

[lizziebits]

Lily –

This is the really lizziebits ;-). My DH ended up having to go to the late Mass tonight, so I’m at home doing some research on this stuff. He is certainly more of a philosopher than I am, but I’m going to take a stab.

Upthread the idea of choosing b/t two evils was brought up, and my DH mentioned the just war theory. You argued that would apply only to war. However, I found this quote, also from Aquinas:

“Now the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen in preference. And therefore the constant man is compelled to bear with the lesser evil through fear of the greater evil,** but he is not compelled to bear with the greater evil in order to avoid the lesser**.”

I think it’s fair to say that there are certain situations where there are only options available, and both are evil. It seems, Aquinas thought so too, from the above statement. So, let’s just say for a minute there is a situation where there really are only two options – lie or allow murder to occur. I think lying would certainly be the lesser evil, and therefore, not sinful.

 

[LilyM]

Lily –

This is the really lizziebits ;-). My DH ended up having to go to the late Mass tonight, so I’m at home doing some research on this stuff. He is certainly more of a philosopher than I am, but I’m going to take a stab.

Upthread the idea of choosing b/t two evils was brought up, and my DH mentioned the just war theory. You argued that would apply only to war. However, I found this quote, also from Aquinas:

“Now the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen in preference. And therefore the constant man is compelled to bear with the lesser evil through fear of the greater evil,** but he is not compelled to bear with the greater evil in order to avoid the lesser**.”

I think it’s fair to say that there are certain situations where there are only options available, and both are evil. It seems, Aquinas thought so too, from the above statement. So, let’s just say for a minute there is a situation where there really are only two options – lie or allow murder to occur. I think lying would certainly be the lesser evil, and therefore, not sinful.

I would say that Aquinas here is discussing situations where both the greater and lesser evil are certain and measurable, possibly even only referring to situations where both evils are ACTUAL rather than potential as the harm to your hidden people would be.

More than that, Aquinas is catering for fallible human nature which many times can’t think clearly in such situations. And I concur, maybe the duress itself will save you from sin.

I don’t think, as a general principle, that lying is unavoidable, or even that it’s always the lesser evil. Again, it goes against God’s traits of omnibenevolence and abhorrence of evil that He would ever leave you without a way out of doing evil if you asked or looked hard enough for it!

Now if you could be anything approaching certain that

a) the hidden were going to be killed without your lie,
b) that nothing else but your lie would be able to prevent their death, and
c) that the lie was highly likely to be effective in preventing them being found

then you might have a case.

The latter two propositions in particular are where I see the real problem.

I think it is more likely than not that your lie would be ineffective.

You also need to consider that if they are found, a high likelihood in most cases, you would merely add the jeopardisation of your own life to the jeopardisation of their lives, which are at high risk no matter what you do, realistically. Since you would certainly be punished - and harshly - for lying to the authorities.

In addition, as I have repeatedly said, there are many things that you can do apart from lying - which have every bit as much chance (some might even have more) of being successful deterrents.

 

[Tietjen]

Getting someone drunk so they won’t search your house (or not thoroughly enough) doesn’t fit any definition of a lie.

I have a problem with this. If I drug someone (getting them drunk), you say it is not a sin? Or at least not a sin greater than the lie I might tell to save a life. I must be missing some thing.

 

[LilyM]

I have a problem with this. If I drug someone (getting them drunk), you say it is not a sin? Or at least not a sin greater than the lie I might tell to save a life. I must be missing some thing.

You can’t MAKE someone get drunk - it’s not like you’re forcibly pouring the drink down their throats, you’re simply offering them drink. It’s their choice if they consume too much. Jesus made wine at Cana - He neither poured it down peoples’ throats nor prevented anyone who wished to abuse it by getting drunk from doing so. He didn’t sin by supplying the wine.

As for drugs - doctors regularly render patients unconscious for the greater good, no? To perform sugery on them and the like? They give them sedatives if they’re under a lot of stress, sleeping pills if they can’t sleep or what have you.

If the patient refuses treatment it can sometimes even be forced upon them. A doctor doesn’t sin by doing this, neither would I.

 

[Tietjen]

You can’t MAKE someone get drunk - it’s not like you’re forcibly pouring the drink down their throats, you’re simply offering them drink. It’s their choice if they consume too much. Jesus made wine at Cana - He neither poured it down peoples’ throats nor prevented anyone who wished to abuse it by getting drunk from doing so. He didn’t sin by supplying the wine.

Your words were not, “offer them drink.” You said, “Get[ting] someone drunk so they won’t search your house…” This implies that you’re intention is to cause them to sin. We know that drunkenness is a sin and you have already stated that you might serve them drink for the expressed purpose of getting them drunk. How is this not a sin? I would suggest to you that it is comparable to assisting someone in obtaining an abortion. You have known sins (abortion & drunkenness). You, knowing, that these are sins, still intend to assist another in obtaining a given result (that result being sinful). Whether you are providing the drink for the purpose of getting someone drunk or providing the ride to someone on her way to an abortion clinic, it is sin. While you may not be the one forcing the person to drink, you are also not the person performing the abortion yet you are an instrument to the end in both cases and therefore guilty.

No, I did not imply that Jesus sinned by changing the water into wine at the wedding. Christ did not do so with the intent of having the guests become drunk. In your solution, you specifically mentioned that the idea was to get the nazi soldiers too drunk to perform a search of the house. While the ends are noble, I submit to you that if my telling the nazis a lie to save lives is sinful, then perhaps your getting them drunk is likewise sinful.

As for drugs - doctors regularly render patients unconscious for the greater good, no? To perform sugery on them and the like? They give them sedatives if they’re under a lot of stress, sleeping pills if they can’t sleep or what have you.

If the patient refuses treatment it can sometimes even be forced upon them. A doctor doesn’t sin by doing this, neither would I.

Again we go back to a doctor’s INTENT. If the doctor intends to give someone meds for the purpose of getting them “high” then they are sinning and breaking civil law. Those same meds CAN indeed be given to a person who requires them for legitimate medical reasons. This scenario doesn’t apply in the case you presented since you have already stated that your intent was to get them drunk. Your intent was thus to facilitate a sin condition. At least when I lie to the nazis at the door, I am not causing them nor providing them with anymore opportunity toward sin. Either they believe the lie or they don’t.

 

[LilyM]

Your words were not, “offer them drink.” You said, “Get[ting] someone drunk so they won’t search your house…” This implies that you’re intention is to cause them to sin. We know that drunkenness is a sin and you have already stated that you might serve them drink for the expressed purpose of getting them drunk. How is this not a sin? I would suggest to you that it is comparable to assisting someone in obtaining an abortion. You have known sins (abortion & drunkenness). You, knowing, that these are sins, still intend to assist another in obtaining a given result (that result being sinful). Whether you are providing the drink for the purpose of getting someone drunk or providing the ride to someone on her way to an abortion clinic, it is sin. While you may not be the one forcing the person to drink, you are also not the person performing the abortion yet you are an instrument to the end in both cases and therefore guilty.

Hang on - there’s drunk and there’s drunk. There’s the type of drunk where the Nazis are passed out on the floor or heaving their guts out (which is NOT what I was thinking of).

And then there’s the type that is more ‘had one or two or three extra glasses at my expense and therefore much less likely to search my house because a) they like me for my generosity and b) they’re not quite thinking as sharp as they would stone-cold sober’. This I don’t think is even a sin. Few if any of the guests at that wedding in Cana would’ve been nearly stone-cold sober when Jesus even made the wine, and He certainly enjoyed alcohol enough to be accused of being a drunkard Himself.

you specifically mentioned that the idea was to get the nazi soldiers too drunk to perform a search of the house.

Like I said, I can’t ‘get’ them that drunk - I may offer them alcohol in the HOPE that it will induce them to give up the search of the house, however much or little they drink. They being adults, and I not being in any position of authority over them, I’m under no real obligation to restrict their drinking to whatever level they choose.

Just like a wife whose husband is determined to have a vasectomy or use a condom may express her disapproval but is not required to forcibly stop him if he decides, nor to stop having sex with him, even though in effect she is enabling him to commit sin by doing so.

Indeed, I’d put myself and my hidden guests in the very danger I was hoping to prevent, if I angered the Nazis by stopping them if they wanted to get plastered, no?

Again we go back to a doctor’s INTENT. If the doctor intends to give someone meds for the purpose of getting them “high” then they are sinning and breaking civil law. Those same meds CAN indeed be given to a person who requires them for legitimate medical reasons. This scenario doesn’t apply in the case you presented since you have already stated that your intent was to get them drunk. Your intent was thus to facilitate a sin condition. At least when I lie to the nazis at the door, I am not causing them nor providing them with anymore opportunity toward sin. Either they believe the lie or they don’t.

I’ve said earlier that the souls of others are much more their own responsibilty and much less ours than you seem to think - even in positions of the closest relationship like husband and wife.

Our obligation to not put others in an occasion of sin is lower than you seem to think - by your logic a bottle-shop or bar could never open, since most of the customers would indeed be alcoholics and it would be an occasion of sin for them. For that matter the mere OWNING of a well-stocked wine cellar would be an inducement to many people to drink, possibly to excess.

Running an internet provider would be a sin, since a majority of internet traffic via ALL providers is pornography - definitely a sin.

As for drugs - who said anything about getting them high? The sort of drugs that produce a ‘high’ - hallucinogenics or cocaine or what have you - have totally unpredictable results, they’re not what I was thinking of.

Certainly doctors DO give anaesthetics and sleeping pills to patients all the time - with the specific intent of rendering them unconscious/asleep. I could certainly do the same, for the same end, and I don’t think it would be a sin.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am a mentor in an RCIA class. One of the other mentors declared that "the Church teaches that lying is always a sin. I said, "No it isn’t. Sometimes lying is morally required. The other mentor asked for a hyporhetical where lying is morally required. I said, "It’s not a hypothetical. It happened in thousands of cases in the Netherlands, after the Nazi takeover in World War II. Thousands of Netherlanders hid Jewish husbands, wives and children in their homes. The Nazis sent the SS out to ever citizen’s house. When you answered the door, the stormtroopers gave you a choice: If you had Jews hiding in your house. and you admitted it, they gave you money, and killed the Jews. If you had Jews hiding in your house, and you denied it and they found them, you died. That simple.

Thousands of people told the brave lie: “No, I don’t have Jews.” I said that their lies were Christian love in motion. They were exactly what Christ referred to when he said, “Greater love than this…” If the Nazis managed to find the Jews, and slaughtered the homeowners, the homeowners were martyrs and went to Heaven for their lie.

I don’t know how God dealt with those who turned in their Jewish guests.

Yes, always. People who have no right to be told the truth - such as would-be murderers - need not be told it. This is where equivocation is permitted (though it should be made use of as seldom as possible), though not encouraged.​

To lie is the work of the devil, their father, & we should flee such a thing. Of Saint Philip Neri we are told:

• “He could not bear two-faced persons; as for liars, he could not endure them, and was continually reminding his spiritual children to avoid them as they would a pestilence.” St Philip is said to have been a very competent student of St.Thomas FWIW

[http://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/meditations4.html (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/meditations4.html)

 

[SteveGC]

Lily,

Thanks for your insightful posts here. I have 3 questions for you, if you have time.

1. Could you comment on the Ask An Apologist (Fr Serpa) post that Tietjen offered early on in this thread? It’s here
2. Could you expound upon the “half-truths” concept that may be permissible to engage in? Or atleast point me to it? I think it was in your very first post here.
3. As another hypothetical to the “nazi” analogy we’ve been using…If I felt assured in my heart that the nazi’s would kill the Jews if I pointed them out, and to avoid lying, I chose to tell them truthfully where they were, would this be sinful? Not that it would be the most prudent option (and likewise lying wouldn’t be), but just as a hypothetical.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

Thanks for your insightful posts here. I have 3 questions for you, if you have time.

1. Could you comment on the Ask An Apologist (Fr Serpa) post that Tietjen offered early on in this thread? It’s here

Police work - or for that matter government espionage - is a different kettle of fish entirely to the case of one individual lying to a nazi or two. Police and governments analyze very carefully - with much more time and information available to them than your average householder - the likelihood of success, the availability of other options, the AMOUNT of good they will do.

They don’t invest in undercover work without a very high probability that it will work, without a LOT being at stake (a lot of lives saved or crimes prevented) and no other less costly (in terms of resources) alternatives available.

1. Could you expound upon the “half-truths” concept that may be permissible to engage in? Or atleast point me to it? I think it was in your very first post here.

It’s simply another way of saying that there are circumstances where people are not entitled to hear the whole truth from you, and therefore you can conceal at least part of it.

An example (not a serious one) might be the rich man who names his boat ‘Business’ so that if people call the office while he’s out fishing his secretary can truthfully say ‘he’s away on “Business”’. Literally it IS the truth, but not the whole truth (therefore a half-truth). And in at least some (though not all) circumstances, the person asking really has no right to know the WHOLE truth that ‘Business’ is in fact his yacht, and the half-truth is sufficient.

Doesn’t mean you can lie, simply not tell the whole truth.

As the Cathecism puts it (with my annotations to show how I read it):

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 as opposed to lying]. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it but they may well be bound not to tell them an untruth].283

1. As another hypothetical to the “nazi” analogy we’ve been using…If I felt assured in my heart that the nazi’s would kill the Jews if I pointed them out, and to avoid lying, I chose to tell them truthfully where they were, would this be sinful? Not that it would be the most prudent option (and likewise lying wouldn’t be), but just as a hypothetical.

Thanks and God Bless

You can avoid lying by silence or other means than fessing up. These are people who have no right to the truth, and I think helping them by pointing out the hidden people to them would go beyond the bounds of what is morally permissible.

As an analogy - a wife isn’t obliged to avoid having sex with her husband if he chooses in spite of her objections to contracept during sex, but she certainly shouldn’t go so far in enabling him as to, say, go to the chemist to buy the condoms for him or what have you.

 

[lizziebits]

I realize I’ve been out of the thread for a while, but the original question was: is lying always sinful.

According to Fr. Serpa, (and I would argue Thomas Aquinas), it is not.

If we can say that sometimes lying is not sinful, then it is possible that the situation we’re discussing is also not sinful.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi again, Lily. Thanks for the responses. See if my summary meshes here…

So, the undercover police officers, because they’ve presumably taken exhaustive, careful measures to ensure success, and because of the “amount” of good they will do with no viable alternative measures, are allowed to lie as needed to achieve these measures?

Back to the Nazis. So, a concealer of Jews, when asked by Nazis with guns “are there Jews in this house?”, can avoid sin by remaining silent (which will probably result in their death, and the Jews), or the concealers, having previously written the word “Auschwitz” on the basement door, can say “the only Jews I know of are in Auschwitz”, and this might be a successful half-truth that keeps everyone alive.

…but they cannot avoid sin if they say “No, there are none here”…or “Yes, they’re in the basement”. Either of those two options is sinful. Would you say they are both venially sinful? If one or both could be mortally sinful, how would you come to that determination?

Would all this be a fair representation of your views? Thanks again.

 

[LilyM]

Hi again, Lily. Thanks for the responses. See if my summary meshes here…

So, the undercover police officers, because they’ve presumably taken exhaustive, careful measures to ensure success, and because of the “amount” of good they will do with no viable alternative measures, are allowed to lie as needed to achieve these measures?

Hmmm … good question. We need to consider other factors as well. Since they are acting for the good of the whole community rather than themselves or a few individuals, it could even be construed as a form of defence of country, akin to soldiers killing the enemy in wartime in situations where it would be impermissible for civilians to do so.

And there’s also a well-established ethical principle that in certain cases (psychology researchers conducting experiments which require concealment and so on) one CAN deceive for a time, as long as one reveals the deception to the deceived at the end of the experiment. And in the case of an undercover police or spying operation, clearly the cover is blown, the deception revealed to the deceived, at some stage when crooks are arrested or information obtained by espionage used.

Back to the Nazis. So, a concealer of Jews, when asked by Nazis with guns “are there Jews in this house?”, can avoid sin by remaining silent (which will probably result in their death, and the Jews), or the concealers, having previously written the word “Auschwitz” on the basement door, can say “the only Jews I know of are in Auschwitz”, and this might be a successful half-truth that keeps everyone alive.

…but they cannot avoid sin if they say “No, there are none here”…or “Yes, they’re in the basement”. Either of those two options is sinful. Would you say they are both venially sinful? If one or both could be mortally sinful, how would you come to that determination?

Would all this be a fair representation of your views? Thanks again.

Not quite.

Your choice of an example in terms of half-truth is not a good one - aren’t the Nazis going to see ‘Auschwitz’ written on your door, after all?

And the statement in itself would be an untruth anyway - clearly you must be aware that there must be Jews in other places than Auschwitz if the Nazis are looking for them in your neighbourhood.

Not to mention that if you’ve got time to think ahead and write on the door, you’ve probably got time to do something more effective - tell them to sneak out of the house while you divert the Nazis with a drink or what have you.

Mortal versus venial sin? I would hold that in a situation of such duress it is unlikely in the extreme that ANY course of action, whether you lied or not or sinned in some other way or not, could be done with the requisite mentality to be mortal sin.

And it’s possible, I suppose, that the duress could be sufficient to remove culpability altogether, although the Catechism would seem to imply that it’s unlikely. It’s a matter of delving into the circumstances of the case in much greater detail than one can do in a hypothetical.

 

[Holly3278]

This has been discussed a number of times in the forums and I believe that situations such as the one you presented are not in fact lies. I believe in order for a lie to exist, the person(s) seeking an answer to an unknown must in fact have a right to know the answer. Did the Nazi’s have a right to know if there were Jews hiding in a private residence? No. Therefore, to deny an honest answer in this case is not lying in my opinion.

Ladies, the same cannot be said concerning weight related questions. You do have a right to know whether or not a specific dress makes you look wider… so don’t ask.

I agree. In order for a lie to exist, the person seeking the information must have a right to that information. But of course, I could be wrong about that.

 

[LilyM]

I agree. In order for a lie to exist, the person seeking the information must have a right to that information. But of course, I could be wrong about that.

As I’ve tried to explain, there’s an important (according to the Catechism) difference between not giving information, which is permissible in such a case, and giving false information. It’s not my idea made up out of thin air, it’s Church teaching.

If someone asks me my age, and I’m 35, I can refuse to answer, I can say ‘I’m between 30 and 50’, I can say ‘I’m NOT 40’. What I can’t do is say ‘I’m 37’.

See people may not always have a right to know the truth, but respect for Christ who IS truth would suggest that we should not stretch that truth so far as to tell a positive UNtruth.

 

[thistle]

Hi again, Lily. Thanks for the responses. See if my summary meshes here…

So, the undercover police officers, because they’ve presumably taken exhaustive, careful measures to ensure success, and because of the “amount” of good they will do with no viable alternative measures, are allowed to lie as needed to achieve these measures?

Back to the Nazis. So, a concealer of Jews, when asked by Nazis with guns “are there Jews in this house?”, can avoid sin by remaining silent (which will probably result in their death, and the Jews), or the concealers, having previously written the word “Auschwitz” on the basement door, can say “the only Jews I know of are in Auschwitz”, and this might be a successful half-truth that keeps everyone alive.

…but they cannot avoid sin if they say “No, there are none here”…or “Yes, they’re in the basement”. Either of those two options is sinful. Would you say they are both venially sinful? If one or both could be mortally sinful, how would you come to that determination?

Would all this be a fair representation of your views? Thanks again.

Didn’t you read the CCC para I quoted earlier?
A lie is ALWAYS a sin. It is a matter of whether it is venial or mortal.

CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2484 clearly defines when a lie of venial nature becomes mortal.
In the case of lying to the the Nazis (the victims of the lies) about Jews in the house the Nazis are not suffering harm by these lies and nor was the intention of the houseowner who told the lies intending harm. On the contrary they were protecting the lives of innocents from the Nazis.
Under CCC 2484 therefore such lies to the Nazis could not be construed as a grave sin.