Is lying always wrong?

[Coder]

…because it was not “uttering a falsehood” is beyond comprehension.

I do agree that to claim something is not a false statement because it is not “uttered” verbally is incorrect. This is a legalistic interpretation.

At the same time, there can be cases when a misstatement or misrepresentation may not be a sin. In order to make progress in this discussion we must define what me mean by a lie.

1. If a “lie” is defined to mean ***all ***misrepresentations then I would say that not all lies are necessarily a sin.
2. If a “lie” is defined to mean a misrepresentation that violates the Commandment about truth then all lies are a sin.

I tend to define “lie” as in 2. For eample, I would not necessarily call these examples lies or sins:

• Notre Dame quarterack deceives opponent by faking a handoff.
• Avoiding disclosure about someone’s whereabouts when others intend harm to them.
• Telling children about Santa Claus.
• Misrepresenting about a surprise birthday party.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

I do agree that to claim something is not a false statement because it is not “uttered” verbally is incorrect. This is a legalistic interpretation.

At the same time, there can be cases when a misstatement or misrepresentation may not be a sin. In order to make progress in this discussion we must define what me mean by a lie.

1. If a “lie” is defined to mean ***all ***misrepresentations then I would say that not all lies are necessarily a sin.
2. If a “lie” is defined to mean a misrepresentation that violates the Commandment about truth then all lies are a sin.

I tend to define “lie” as in 2. For eample, I would not necessarily call these examples lies or sins:

• Notre Dame quarterack deceives opponent by faking a handoff.
• Avoiding disclosure about someone’s whereabouts when others intend harm to them.
• Telling children about Santa Claus.
• Misrepresenting about a surprise birthday party.

Sorry, Virginia, there is NO Santa Claus.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

And what about warfare? Assume a just war fought justly. An important tactic in warfare is misdirection and deceit of your enemy. Is a double agent sinning by telling his enemy target that “the troops are coming from the north” when they are really coming from the south? What about preparing fake battleplans with the intention of allowing them to be “found” by your enemy? How about counterfitting the enemy’s money in order to cause his economy to collapse? In all of these cases, you are representing falsehood to be the truth…i.e., you’re lying.

I don’t think that it is as simple as saying that lying is always, under every circumstance imaginable, a sin.

rr1213:

And almost all of these are done to reduce the number of casaulties on both sides as well as to reduce the amount of sufferring among civilians.

It was Sir Winston Churchill who said during the run up to Operation Overlord that, “Sometimes the truth needs a bodyguard of lies.”

Most historians believe that without Operation Bodyguard, Operation Overlord might very well have failed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Shakespere said it best:
“Ah, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decive.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

“Mental reservation” does not equal “lying”? An amazing concept…think about it…

Lawyer: Was the light green or red?

Proponent of Mental Reservation: Green…[at least at some point in the day].

Lawyer: Were your brakes working at the time of the accident?

PMR: No…[they were not working because I failed to press the brake pedal]

Lawyer: Isn’t true that your passenger had three drinks within an hour?

PMR: Yes, he did…[if, by “drinks”, you mean Diet Pepsi]

Lawyer: You say that you are a Christian. That being the case, would you lie to the Court?

PMR: Of course not…[now, “mental reservation” is another thing…]

I’d throw the guy in jail for perjury, “mental reservation”, or not…

rr1213:

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching on the subject, which has to do with the answers to these two questions:

1. Would answering with the truth produce and unjust result (i.e., Would innocent people be hurt or killed by people who were looking for them if they were told the truth about where they were?)?

1a. Do the people answering the question have the right to the tryth? Or, Would they use a truthful answer to harm innocent people?

1. Would a truthful answer cause unnecessary discord in the home, family, or elsewhere in the community? (“Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”)

The Church’s teaching is quite clear that I am not allowed to LIE to save my sorry *** from justice or to cast aspersions upon another.

I thought this Forum was about dialogue and learning, not about creating ridiculous charactures of our fellow posters positions so we can ridicule them, or setting up “strawmen” to knock them down.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[rr1213]

rr1213:

And almost all of these are done to reduce the number of casaulties on both sides as well as to reduce the amount of sufferring among civilians.

It was Sir Winston Churchill who said during the run up to Operation Overlord that, “Sometimes the truth needs a bodyguard of lies.”

Most historians believe that without Operation Bodyguard, Operation Overlord might very well have failed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I agree. I am not the one who is arguing that it is never, never, never appropriate to lie, notwithstanding extraordinary extenuating circumstances. Nonetheless, there are Catholics in this thread who are making that very contention.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213:

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching on the subject, which has to do with the answers to these two questions:

1. Would answering with the truth produce and unjust result (i.e., Would innocent people be hurt or killed by people who were looking for them if they were told the truth about where they were?)?

1a. Do the people answering the question have the right to the tryth? Or, Would they use a truthful answer to harm innocent people?

1. Would a truthful answer cause unnecessary discord in the home, family, or elsewhere in the community? (“Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”)

The Church’s teaching is quite clear that I am not allowed to LIE to save my sorry *** from justice or to cast aspersions upon another.

I thought this Forum was about dialogue and learning, not about creating ridiculous charactures of our fellow posters positions so we can ridicule them, or setting up “strawmen” to knock them down.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Please chill Michael. As you can see from the examples I posted, I am exploring the CATHOLIC concept of mental reservation. I understand that the example that I gave does not involve a grave situation, but the concept is still the same. In those examples, with the answers given, are they lies or examples of mental reservation? If mental reservation, how does that device differ from a lie simply because the information reserved mentally is not verbally discussed? I see no meaningful difference between the lie and the mental reservation, the latter simply an acceptable euphemism for “lie”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Lying is always immoral, even in a situation where there is fear for the safety of innocents and unjust external pressure is used against one.

Lying is not always a mortal sin, sometimes it is a venial sin.

Mental reservation does not involve lying. It involves making a limited statement of truth, while reserving other truths. For example, when Jesus was asked if he was going to the Feast in Jerusalem, he said: “I am not going to this feast because for me the time is not yet right.” This was a true statement, which implied the further truth that when the time was right, he would go. And so he did.

St. Catherine of Sienna said: “I would not commit the smallest sin, not even to redeem the whole world from Hell.”

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Lying is always immoral, even in a situation where there is fear for the safety of innocents and unjust external pressure is used against one.

Lying is not always a mortal sin, sometimes it is a venial sin.

Mental reservation does not involve lying. It involves making a limited statement of truth, while reserving other truths. For example, when Jesus was asked if he was going to the Feast in Jerusalem, he said: “I am not going to this feast because for me the time is not yet right.” This was a true statement, which implied the further truth that when the time was right, he would go. And so he did.

St. Catherine of Sienna said: “I would not commit the smallest sin, not even to redeem the whole world from Hell.”

Right said!!

 

[MilesXpisti]

Wrong. I protest that the gestapo do not have the right to know the truth.
I would be convinced if you would address the Gestapo’s right to know the truth instead of tilting with strawmen.Wrong again, I appended nothing. The Vatican website says…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the*** right to know the truth. ***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.Makes sense to me.

• To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.
• To myth make is to act against the truth [but not] lead into error, someone who has the right to know the truth.
• To keep silent or speak discretely is to act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who does [not] have the right to know the truth.
• To tell the truth is to is to [not] speak or act against the truth [at all.]

Respectfully, it is you that is in error. The version of the Catechism which you quote appears to an anomaly rather than the standard. Four Catechisms that I’ve reviewed, including my own , the Catechism hosted by the Knights of Columbus (which itself contains any and all revisions made during 1997), the Catechism hosted by the U.S. Council of Catholic bishops, and lastly, though certainly not least, the Latin Catechism (which is considered official de facto) also hosted on the Vatican website. Per the most former:

Section 2483, Sentence 2: Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem.

You will note that the clause to which you so mightily cling, ad illam cognoscendam non habet, is conspicuously absent until some six sections later. This is also the case with all the other sources that I consulted. It appears that the Catechism you were using was corrected (you would probably choose amended), in the 1997 Second Edition of the Edito Typica, probably for this very reason (giving the appearance that lying was morally justified in certain situations).

In the context of the currently typified edition, the balancing of the right to know the truth with truthfulness can be met with silence or discreet language. Not a lie. Period.

Once it can be firmly established that lying is speaking or acting with the intention to deceive, regardless of who it is (this is further confirmed by the Brief of this particular section (CCC 2508: Mendacium est falsum dicere cum intentione fallendi proximum. / Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.), then the power of justified means enters into play (CCC 1753: Intentio bona (exempli gratia: proximum adiuvare) nec bonum nec iustum reddit modum agendi qui in se ipso esset deordinatus (sicut mendacium et maledicentia). Finis media non iustificat. Sic innocentis damnatio iustificari non potest tamquam medium legitimum ad populum salvandum. E contra, mala intentio superaddita (sicut gloria vana) malum reddit actum qui in se potest bonus esse (sicut eleemosyna61). / A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

 

[Orionthehunter]

Respectfully, it is you that is in error. The version of the Catechism which you quote appears to an anomaly rather than the standard. Four Catechisms that I’ve reviewed, including my own , the Catechism hosted by the Knights of Columbus (which itself contains any and all revisions made during 1997), the Catechism hosted by the U.S. Council of Catholic bishops, and lastly, though certainly not least, the Latin Catechism (which is considered official de facto) also hosted on the Vatican website. Per the most former:

Section 2483, Sentence 2: Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem.

You will note that the clause to which you so mightily cling, ad illam cognoscendam non habet, is conspicuously absent until some six sections later. This is also the case with all the other sources that I consulted. It appears that the Catechism you were using was corrected (you would probably choose amended), in the 1997 Second Edition of the Edito Typica, probably for this very reason (giving the appearance that lying was morally justified in certain situations).

In the context of the currently typified edition, the balancing of the right to know the truth with truthfulness can be met with silence or discreet language. Not a lie. Period.

Once it can be firmly established that lying is speaking or acting with the intention to deceive, regardless of who it is (this is further confirmed by the Brief of this particular section (CCC 2508: Mendacium est falsum dicere cum intentione fallendi proximum. / Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.), then the power of justified means enters into play (CCC 1753: Intentio bona (exempli gratia: proximum adiuvare) nec bonum nec iustum reddit modum agendi qui in se ipso esset deordinatus (sicut mendacium et maledicentia). Finis media non iustificat. Sic innocentis damnatio iustificari non potest tamquam medium legitimum ad populum salvandum. E contra, mala intentio superaddita (sicut gloria vana) malum reddit actum qui in se potest bonus esse (sicut eleemosyna61). / A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

From the Catechism on the current USCCB website:

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.

“To lead someone into error”, implies that it will cause another to sin (i.e. commit an sinful act or hold a sinful thought). Thus, to not confirm a fact or deny a fact to a Nazi who will use the information to do evil is not a lie.

And, one must consider the circumstances:

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.

If one pledges to hold a confidence of another, one commits a grave act against the truth to break that confidence. If in the case of a Nazi’s at the door, one is only able to maintain the higher confidence (one trusted their life from protection of a an evildoer) by using deception.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

From the Catechism on the current USCCB website:

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.

Not to mention the relation of woman too. And her neighnor as well. So there it is, in living color–to lie is to do evil, regardless.

 

[MilesXpisti]

From the Catechism on the current USCCB website:

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.

“To lead someone into error”, implies that it will cause another to sin (i.e. commit an sinful act or hold a sinful thought). Thus, to not confirm a fact or deny a fact to a Nazi who will use the information to do evil is not a lie.

And, one must consider the circumstances:

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.

If one pledges to hold a confidence of another, one commits a grave act against the truth to break that confidence. If in the case of a Nazi’s at the door, one is only able to maintain the higher confidence (one trusted their life from protection of a an evildoer) by using deception.

As I’ve stated many times, it cannot be simply a moral error, given the case of false witness and slander. The falsehood spoken leads no one into moral error, but it does damage the relationship between the listener and the truth, and more to the point between the listener and the neighbor damaged by the gossip. The error here is one of a factual nature.

In relation to your second point, a Catholic is obliged only to remain silent or to use discreet language. Once the act is established as a lie, there is no moral ground on which to say it is permissible (CCC 1753). Period.

 

[Orionthehunter]

As I’ve stated many times, it cannot be simply a moral error, given the case of false witness and slander. The falsehood spoken leads no one into moral error, but it does damage the relationship between the listener and the truth, and more to the point between the listener and the neighbor damaged by the gossip. The error here is one of a factual nature.

In relation to your second point, a Catholic is obliged only to remain silent or to use discreet language. Once the act is established as a lie, there is no moral ground on which to say it is permissible (CCC 1753). Period.

If a Nazi came to my door and asked if I had any Jews, your answer is to say nothing or try to mislead by using discrete language? If I was absolutely sure in this concrete situation that only an aggressive denial of any Jews were in my house would result in my ability to effectively honor my request to protect them, I would say anything necessary to get the illigitimate Nazi’s who had not right to know who I was protecting to depart from my premises.

Your simplistic approach to this and your ignoring of the concept of duress and our right to take any reasonable and proportionate action to relieve ourselves from the duress places telling of the truth to anyone regardless of the circumstances and their right to the truth as the highest of all virtues relative to others including protection of life. Thank you very much but I am going to quite comfortably ignore your counsel and follow my own conscience (the aboriginal Christ that resides in my most inner depths of my existence).

 

[MilesXpisti]

If a Nazi came to my door and asked if I had any Jews, your answer is to say nothing or try to mislead by using discrete language? If I was absolutely sure in this concrete situation that only an aggressive denial of any Jews were in my house would result in my ability to effectively honor my request to protect them, I would say anything necessary to get the illigitimate Nazi’s who had not right to know who I was protecting to depart from my premises.

Your simplistic approach to this and your ignoring of the concept of duress and our right to take any reasonable and proportionate action to relieve ourselves from the duress places telling of the truth to anyone regardless of the circumstances and their right to the truth as the highest of all virtues relative to others including protection of life.

There seems to be a disparity of understanding here. The original question was not “what would you do?” but “is lying always wrong?” Is it always an objective moral evil? The Catechism is clear, Scripture is clear, Church fathers (Augustine and Thomas Aquinas among them) are clear. Lying is always morally unjustifiable. Please do not expect me to cater to a theology where expendience of action allows for the selection of lesser evils.

Thank you very much but I am going to quite comfortably ignore your counsel and follow my own conscience (the aboriginal Christ that resides in my most inner depths of my existence).

You are of course free to do as your conscience guides, but unless you are a Bishop teaching in union with the Holy Father, please do not ascribe it the divine charism of infallibility.

 

[Orionthehunter]

There seems to be a disparity of understanding here. The original question was not “what would you do?” but “is lying always wrong?” Is it always an objective moral evil? The Catechism is clear, Scripture is clear, Church fathers (Augustine and Thomas Aquinas among them) are clear. Lying is always morally unjustifiable. Please do not expect me to cater to a theology where expendience of action allows for the selection of lesser evils.

You are of course free to do as your conscience guides, but unless you are a Bishop teaching in union with the Holy Father, please do not ascribe it the divine charism of infallibility.

And you should not ascribe your personal interpretation as infallible. I reject you failure to consider duress, prior and greater obligation to protect life from evildoers, and the other context of the issue as a situation of choosing between two evils of different gravity.

 

[MilesXpisti]

And you should not ascribe your personal interpretation as infallible. I reject you failure to consider duress, prior and greater obligation to protect life from evildoers, and the other context of the issue as a situation of choosing between two evils of different gravity.

As is your right. I thank you nonetheless for some edifying discourse and wish you well. Dominus tecum.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t know how to say this without sounding “flip”, but I thought that one of the advantages of having a Magisterium is to avoid the problem of “personal interpretation” of Scripture. Here, we’ve seen a fascinating dialogue between devout and knowledgeable Catholics on both side of this issue, each citing the other to various aspects of the CCC as well as using Scripture and Reason. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the authority of the Magisterium, this discussion almost sounds like a fight between sola scriptura Protestants over the interpretation of a difficult scriptural passage. Now, I suspect that both positions in this discussion will simply say that they are the ones correctly representing the Church’s position, but isn’t that the same situation Protestants find ourselves in when we argue over Scripture?

 

[quasimodo]

I don’t know how to say this without sounding “flip”, but I thought that one of the advantages of having a Magisterium is to avoid the problem of “personal interpretation” of Scripture. Here, we’ve seen a fascinating dialogue between devout and knowledgeable Catholics on both side of this issue, each citing the other to various aspects of the CCC as well as using Scripture and Reason. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the authority of the Magisterium, this discussion almost sounds like a fight between sola scriptura Protestants over the interpretation of a difficult scriptural passage. Now, I suspect that both positions in this discussion will simply say that they are the ones correctly representing the Church’s position, but isn’t that the same situation Protestants find ourselves in when we argue over Scripture?

I understand the point you make but I do think you are off base some. Catholic moral teaching gives principles to use in determining the correct choice to make. It does not and cannot determine what you should do in each case. There are a few cases, like the termination of a tubal pregnancy, that are well thought out and well known, but most tough decisions are not. For some moral decisions, faithful Catholics may come to opposite decisions while legitimately applying the principles …for example, whether to support the death penalty. JP II came down hard in opposition but stopped short of a de fide proclamation. A catholic may support the death penalty in good faith but the ground may be weak under them and may not hold for long as teaching and thought on this topic develop over time.

What we are discussing is how to apply the principles properly.

Personality tests show me to be a serious rule follower, yet I am on the side of seeming to break a rule for a higher cause. I reject the “thou shalt not make a statement contrary to fact under ANY circumstance” position because in some cases the other party has no right to the truth in any way shape or form. (e.g. the midwives in Exodus applied the rule like this and were rewarded for it.) “Lying” in cases like this involves no lie whatsoever - hence no sin. The loyal opposition sees this as, perhaps, a venial sin and states that sin can never be condoned. True enough, but I reject the idea that it is a sin at all. The church herself has issued many tens of thousands of phony baptismal certificates - everyone making a statement contrary to fact - in an heroic effort to save lives (cf. the midwives).

 

[rr1213]

I understand the point you make but I do think you are off base some. Catholic moral teaching gives principles to use in determining the correct choice to make. It does not and cannot determine what you should do in each case. There are a few cases, like the termination of a tubal pregnancy, that are well thought out and well known, but most tough decisions are not. For some moral decisions, faithful Catholics may come to opposite decisions while legitimately applying the principles …for example, whether to support the death penalty. JP II came down hard in opposition but stopped short of a de fide proclamation. A catholic may support the death penalty in good faith but the ground may be weak under them and may not hold for long as teaching and thought on this topic develop over time.

What we are discussing is how to apply the principles properly.

I’ve already stated what I would do and the reasons why, so I won’t address the substance of the question further.

My point is that both sides of the discussion, at least that portion of this thread carried on by Catholics, cite to various sections of the CCC. Both sides rely on the CCC and use it in support of their respective arguments, which are very well reasoned and advocated. So, in a sense, we have dueling CCC references. As a Protestant, I am familiar with this situation, but in the context of Scriptural interpretation. The CCC, of course, represents the teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s just one of those moral questions where I would have thought that the Church’s position would be less open to interpretation.