Is lying always wrong?

[Leo1]

The Catechism seems to say yes! See, CCC 2482-87. It does indicate that circumstances and intention can mitigate the evil of lying, but never make a lie justified or good in an objective sense. CCC 2484. Am I reading it correctly? If for instance – and I can think of a lot of these and so can you – I lived in occupied France in WWII and the Gestapo comes to my door and says, “where is the Jewish family that used to live next door?”, and I say, “I saw them leaving last week before the German army got here; I don’t know where they went”, but in reality they are hidden in a secret room in my basement. Is this still objectively wrong even if not so bad? The Catehism seems to say yes. If I am right about the Catechism’s teaching, how can this be right?

 

[LilyM]

Looks like you stopped just two paragraphs short in your reading there.

'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. ’

So it’s clear there are occasions where it is NOT appropriate to reveal the truth (so at the very least silence is always an option).

'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. 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.283 "

Would you say someone who intends to unjustly imprison or kill another has any sort of right to know where they are? Certainly not. So again, you’re not obliged to reveal their location.

There are other circumstances as well that affect one’s culpability for a lie, as with many other sins. If you’re under duress (as you would be if Nazis marched up to your door demanding you hand over people to them so they could be unjustly imprisoned or killed), a lie in such circumstances would at the very least would almost certainly be reduced to a venial sin if not to no sin at all.

 

[Leo1]

Actually, I read those paragraphs as well. They are NOT ON POINT!!! I know I wouldn’t be obliged to tell the nazis; I could remain silent. I think that’s clear from the Catechism. However, remaining silent in such as situation would be taken for what it really is, an admission!!! I would then be tortured or threatened by the nazis to get the info they wanted. Then, the jews I was hiding would be found out, and we’d all be killed. They would be killed for being Jews and me for lying to the Gestapo. Not a good result. I guess I have a duty to be martyred, even though that too would tip the nazis off that I was hiding something or in this case someone, and that in and of itself would almost certainly get the Jewish family killed too. The Catechism puts you in a no win situation. I think that’s wrong.

The point: the Catechism does not even recognize this situation as one justifying a lie. You can’t even lie to the devil to protect an innocent victim. Lying is NEVER justified objectively, no matter what the situation! And, since no sin can be justified, you should never sin. Thus, if I told the Gestapo, “the jewish family is in the basement,” I would not have sinned even though my actions would certainly lead to their murder. I would NOT have to confess, provided I had the right intention. i.e., to avoid lying. On the other hand, if I lie to protect their lives and mine, I WILL have committed at least a venial sin. This seems to be contrary to natural law, good sense, reason, and basic morality.

 

[EmeraldWings]

i might have something here that will help, it’s from the book “this is the faith” a complete catechism of the catholic church, i always find this book to be more helpful than any of my other catechism books because it just explains things so well.

“It is never lawful to tell a lie, no matter what the object. However, mental reservations and equivocations are not sinful, so long as they are not unlawfully deceptive. Here we must distinguish between **strict **and broad mental reservations:
Strict mental reservations are always a lie and therefore sinful.
The reason is that there is no clue given in the person’s answer as to the true meaning the speaker is intending, because the mental reservation is kept *strictly *in the speaker’s mind, and there is no outward indication as to the limited meaning. For example: You ask a person “Did you leave town yesterday,” and he answers “No,” meaning, “I did not leave town yesterday in a car.”
Broad mental reservations are not sinful so long as the broad mental reservation is used only as a refuge to guard a secret from prying questioners who have no right to the information they seek,
(Austin Fagothey, S.J., Right and Reason, Page 319). In a Broad mental reservation, there is a clue to the correct meaning of the answer, e.g., when a child under instruction from his mother tells a salesman, “My mother is not at home.” The meaning is, “Not at home to you.” The salesman did not have a right to know. Our Lord Himself used the broad mental reservation for a serious reason. (Cf. John 7:8-10).”

that should answer your question, but if you still don’t understand, let me know and i’ll try to explain it.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, I read those paragraphs as well. They are NOT ON POINT!!! I know I wouldn’t be obliged to tell the nazis; I could remain silent. I think that’s clear from the Catechism. However, remaining silent in such as situation would be taken for what it really is, an admission!!! I would then be tortured or threatened by the nazis to get the info they wanted. Then, the jews I was hiding would be found out, and we’d all be killed. They would be killed for being Jews and me for lying to the Gestapo. Not a good result. I guess I have a duty to be martyred, even though that too would tip the nazis off that I was hiding something or in this case someone, and that in and of itself would almost certainly get the Jewish family killed too. The Catechism puts you in a no win situation. I think that’s wrong.

The point: the Catechism does not even recognize this situation as one justifying a lie. You can’t even lie to the devil to protect an innocent victim. Lying is NEVER justified objectively, no matter what the situation! And, since no sin can be justified, you should never sin. Thus, if I told the Gestapo, “the jewish family is in the basement,” I would not have sinned even though my actions would certainly lead to their murder. I would NOT have to confess, provided I had the right intention. i.e., to avoid lying. On the other hand, if I lie to protect their lives and mine, I WILL have committed at least a venial sin. This seems to be contrary to natural law, good sense, reason, and basic morality.

Says who? You do know that factors like duress can in some circumstances totally eliminate culpability for what would otherwise be a sin, even a mortal one, don’t you? Do you know what duress means? Do you know what it means when all culpability is removed? It means that you bear no moral blame or guilt for the behaviour that would in other circumstances be a sin. And your Nazi example would most likely be a situation of extreme duress of this kind. Ergo, most likely, no moral guilt or blame attaching.

 

[bbentrup]

There is a fascinating entry of lying in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm

 

[Leo1]

Says who? You do know that factors like duress can in some circumstances totally eliminate culpability for what would otherwise be a sin, even a mortal one, don’t you? Do you know what duress means? Do you know what it means when all culpability is removed? It means that you bear no moral blame or guilt for the behaviour that would in other circumstances be a sin. And your Nazi example would most likely be a situation of extreme duress of this kind. Ergo, most likely, no moral guilt or blame attaching.

I appreciate your response, but it’s not on point either. I have gotten a couple of good responses, but none cite the Catechism or other “official” Catholic teaching. Your response begs the question. You don’t like the facts and so you introduce an additional fact: “duress.” I am aware that “duress” would mitigate the “sin.” It would possibly mitigate it altogther so that there would be no “sin.” However, this is not always the case, even in such situations as I presented. “Duress” is a subjective state of mind and is not always present even in these situations. What I don’t understand from the Catechism or any “official” Catholic teaching that I can find is why a “lie” in this situatiion is not perfectly justified objectively. The nazi demanding the answer has no right to the truth, is motivated by evil, is going to do something that is objectively wrong with the info I give him, and is – objectively – engaged in an unjust war. Why not just say that lying to save a life in such situations is an objective good, i.e., it’s not really wrongful because of the objective values (the life of innocent persons) at stake or that pure intentions in such circumstances (the “desire” to save innocent life) make the lie ok??? In other words, just say this is ok. This is exactly what you should do in such circumstances. Why do we have to be under “duress” to make saving innocent lives ok? I’m not trying to challenge the Church or the Catechism. I’m just trying to figure this out. I think that while my example may seem like a rare case to us, it is the kind of situation that many face in various circumstances around the world daily. I think such people are heroes and don’t need the “excuse” of “duress.” Again, I’m just looking for a clear explanation.

 

[LilyM]

I appreciate your response, but it’s not on point either. I have gotten a couple of good responses, but none cite the Catechism or other “official” Catholic teaching. Your response begs the question. You don’t like the facts and so you introduce an additional fact: “duress.” I am aware that “duress” would mitigate the “sin.” It would possibly mitigate it altogther so that there would be no “sin.” However, this is not always the case, even in such situations as I presented. “Duress” is a subjective state of mind and is not always present even in these situations. What I don’t understand from the Catechism or any “official” Catholic teaching that I can find is why a “lie” in this situatiion is not perfectly justified objectively. The nazi demanding the answer has no right to the truth, is motivated by evil, is going to do something that is objectively wrong with the info I give him, and is – objectively – engaged in an unjust war. Why not just say that lying to save a life in such situations is an objective good, i.e., it’s not really wrongful because of the objective values (the life of innocent persons) at stake or that pure intentions in such circumstances (the “desire” to save innocent life) make the lie ok??? In other words, just say this is ok. This is exactly what you should do in such circumstances. Why do we have to be under “duress” to make saving innocent lives ok? I’m not trying to challenge the Church or the Catechism. I’m just trying to figure this out. I think that while my example may seem like a rare case to us, it is the kind of situation that many face in various circumstances around the world daily. I think such people are heroes and don’t need the “excuse” of “duress.” Again, I’m just looking for a clear explanation.

In other words because YOU feel a lie is utterly justified under any circumstances whatsoever in order to protect life in this situation you want the Church, in the name of God, to just put a big old rubber stamp on your feelings? Moral teachings don’t work on your say-so, nor are they a matter of democratic vote or opinion, even majority opinion.

If you feel it’s justified, then you’re a big boy, go right ahead and lie. Ultimately you’ll have to answer to God for everything you do, as will all of us.

The fact is that sometimes, just sometimes, there ARE worse evils than someone, even an innocent person, losing their life, and that preservation of life, even innocent life, is not just a green light to sin in any other way.

Remember that Jesus never lied to save His own life nor anyone else’s. Imagine the distastrous consequences for us if He HAD lied to either save Himself or, say, John the Baptist or anyone else. He’d be flouting the Father’s will.

Jesus IS truth incarnate, truth is one of His defining features, and if we are His followers it needs to be so for us too. To sin against truth by lies or deception - in most circumstances - is a serious offence to God.

Think about what lying in such a cause would mean - ultimately it’s telling God that a) you can’t trust Him to decide when and if people are to live or die b) you can’t trust that God’s will can be accomplished without you needing to offend His truth to do it, c) you can’t trust Him to protect His own, and d) you can’t trust Him to bring His good purposes to fruition even out of evil circumstances.

Remember too that Jesus said ‘fear not those who can destroy the body - RATHER fear him who can destroy both body and soul in Hell’, thus showing that preservation of life is NOT an automatic justification for lying or any other sin.

So no, if you’re looking for a free ticket to lie your little heart out even in a good cause, you’re not going to find it in the Church, nor in Christ’s own teachings.

 

[Holly3278]

Someone said that silence would be an option. While this would be a valid option in most cases, what about the case of the Nazis looking for the hidden Jew? If they asked you if you were hiding Jews in your house and you just simply remained silent, they’d know you were hiding them and would search your house until they found them.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The Catechism seems to say yes! See, CCC 2482-87. It does indicate that circumstances and intention can mitigate the evil of lying, but never make a lie justified or good in an objective sense. CCC 2484. Am I reading it correctly? If for instance – and I can think of a lot of these and so can you – I lived in occupied France in WWII and the Gestapo comes to my door and says, “where is the Jewish family that used to live next door?”, and I say, “I saw them leaving last week before the German army got here; I don’t know where they went”, but in reality they are hidden in a secret room in my basement. Is this still objectively wrong even if not so bad? The Catehism seems to say yes. If I am right about the Catechism’s teaching, how can this be right?

Lying is always a sin.

Mental restriction is usually not.

Find out the difference.

 

[New_Yorker]

Cf. Catechism 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. 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.

Depending on the circumstances, one may not have to reveal the truth to someone who has no right to know it - Nazi’s asking if you’ve hidden Jews in your house, for instance.

 

[brigid12]

Broad mental reservations are not sinful so long as the broad mental reservation is used only as a refuge to guard a secret from prying questioners who have no right to the information they seek,
(Austin Fagothey, S.J., Right and Reason, Page 319). In a Broad mental reservation, there is a clue to the correct meaning of the answer, e.g., when a child under instruction from his mother tells a salesman, “My mother is not at home.” The meaning is, “Not at home to you.” The salesman did not have a right to know. Our Lord Himself used the broad mental reservation for a serious reason. (Cf. John 7:8-10)."

that should answer your question, but if you still don’t understand, let me know and i’ll try to explain it.

OK, so would this include mumbling about an appointment to the drs. (or some such thing) to your present employer in order to go to an interview at another job? With today’s employment insecurity the need to have another job lined up if needed is so important - I’ve been unemployed while seriously looking for over a year and have been tempted to take positions that wouldn’t pay the bills, just until I could get another/better position - just to limp along, but haven’t due to then needing to lie to my present employer (or face firing).

 

[New_Yorker]

There’s also this:

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. 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.

So, it seems to me, there are (rare) situations where you can withhold the truth. Wouldn’t lying be acceptable in these situations?

 

[LilyM]

OK, so would this include mumbling about an appointment to the drs. (or some such thing) to your present employer in order to go to an interview at another job? With today’s employment insecurity the need to have another job lined up if needed is so important - I’ve been unemployed while seriously looking for over a year and have been tempted to take positions that wouldn’t pay the bills, just until I could get another/better position - just to limp along, but haven’t due to then needing to lie to my present employer (or face firing).

Well, job insecurity really can make people sick, mentally if not physically, so perhaps you can say you’re sick. A little ingenuity might lead to better solutions in such situations though - maybe say you’ve got an appointment at the bank about something, then go in briefly to make a genuine transaction (so you’re not really lying) after which you proceed to your job interview.

Mind you, I literally was just reminded of a story frequently told about St Elizabeth of Hungary. Her husband forbade her from giving food to the poor, but caught her in the act of disobeying him. She had an apron full of bread, he asked her what was in her apron, She said ‘roses’, which was an outright lie. He demanded to see, she opened her apron and it was indeed miraculously full of roses.

So it would seem perhaps that God does take pity on those who really are in difficult situations where they want to do some great good but due to the unreasonableness of others cannot do so without lying.

 

[brigid12]

Well, job insecurity really can make people sick, mentally if not physically, so perhaps you can say you’re sick. A little ingenuity might lead to better solutions in such situations though - maybe say you’ve got an appointment at the bank about something, then go in briefly to make a genuine transaction (so you’re not really lying) after which you proceed to your job interview.

Mind you, I literally was just reminded of a story frequently told about St Elizabeth of Hungary. Her husband forbade her from giving food to the poor, but caught her in the act of disobeying him. She had an apron full of bread, he asked her what was in her apron, She said ‘roses’, which was an outright lie. He demanded to see, she opened her apron and it was indeed miraculously full of roses.

So it would seem perhaps that God does take pity on those who really are in difficult situations where they want to do some great good but due to the unreasonableness of others cannot do so without lying.

I really appreciate your response but am skeptical that going to a job interview can be equated with giving food to the poor. Maybe I’m being over scrupulous and if a position gives you “personal time” I would probably be able to avoid too much questioning. I have, in the past, said I had a dr’s appt, then actually set up a chiro appt. for myself that day. I’m just wondering if there’s any better way to do it that you guys know about?

 

[peary]

The Catechism seems to say yes! See, CCC 2482-87. It does indicate that circumstances and intention can mitigate the evil of lying, but never make a lie justified or good in an objective sense. CCC 2484. Am I reading it correctly? If for instance – and I can think of a lot of these and so can you – I lived in occupied France in WWII and the Gestapo comes to my door and says, “where is the Jewish family that used to live next door?”, and I say, “I saw them leaving last week before the German army got here; I don’t know where they went”, but in reality they are hidden in a secret room in my basement. Is this still objectively wrong even if not so bad? The Catehism seems to say yes. If I am right about the Catechism’s teaching, how can this be right?

**Lying is a psychological form of self-preservation and survival. It is used to keep the ego intact within the bounds of its own behavior. When it hurts another human being or the person lying, it is intrinsically wrong. If it is intended to save the life of another human being, as the CCC says, circumstances and intensions can mitigate the evil of lying. that’s how I read it. **

"What you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."

 

[LilyM]

I really appreciate your response but am skeptical that going to a job interview can be equated with giving food to the poor. Maybe I’m being over scrupulous and if a position gives you “personal time” I would probably be able to avoid too much questioning. I have, in the past, said I had a dr’s appt, then actually set up a chiro appt. for myself that day. I’m just wondering if there’s any better way to do it that you guys know about?

Oh, I never meant to suggest that the two were equivalent. Hence I wasn’t saying one should lie outright to an employer as St Elizabeth did to her husband.

Although I would say many employers are more than a bit naive in deliberately creating an environment of job instability, and then expecting employees not to cover their bases in terms of finding out about other work in case it should be necessary.