Is lying always wrong?

[HailMary]

What did he say?

Tobit 5:11-14

11
Tobit asked, “Brother, tell me, please, what family and tribe are you from?”
12
Raphael said: “Why? Do you need a tribe and a family? Or are you looking for a hired man to travel with your son?” Tobit replied, “I wish to know truthfully whose son you are, brother, and what your name is.”
13
5 Raphael answered, “I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen.”
14
Tobit exclaimed: “Welcome! God save you, brother! Do not be provoked with me, brother, for wanting to learn the truth about your family. So it turns out that you are a kinsman, and from a noble and good line! I knew Hananiah and Nathaniah, the two sons of Shemaiah the elder; with me they used to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where we would worship together. No, they did not stray from the right path; your kinsmen are good men. You are certainly of good lineage, and welcome!”

 

[HailMary]

Is an angel subject to the same morality as a human being? Moreoever, who’s to say that the name he gave was not a name by which he was also known, an alias rather than a false name.

Because no where in the text does it even suggest this. Further, in other places in the bible, Angels name are not to understood or prounouced by us.

 

[KindredSoul]

And what about the Catholic doctrine of “mental reservation”? It seems to me to be splitting hairs here…an outright lie being unacceptable but a statement intentionally structured to deceive is ok.

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

Wide Mental Reservation, in which no lie is ever spoken (without needing mental qualifiers to justify it), seems alright…but it seems it should only be used if one is forced into the situation, and if the person forcing as such has no business knowing…also, from my understanding I find that the intention doesn’t seem so much to deceive really as to divert attention elsewhere…it’s more like a very very clever means of changing the subject than lying.

If Nazis asked the aforementioned Mrs Van Hort whether or not she was hiding Jews, and she responded “Do you think I’d risk my life or reputation for Jews?!”, she hasn’t lied…not by any stretch of the imagination.

True, she’s hoping the Nazis will assume (wrongly) that the answer is “no”…but then, even if she was silent, and even if the Nazis never came to her house, she’s hoping that they’d (just as wrongly) assume the same, and thus never interrogate her in the first place–does that mean that anything short of screaming from the rooftops “I’m hiding Jews!!!” is a lie? Of course not. But by the reasoning that even her ambiguous statement is a lie, one could argue that silence itself is a lie as well…then people are left with absolutely no means to keep potentially harmful info from the wrong hands if the only moral option is to shout the truth out!

I’d say in most cases that effective use of Wide Mental Reservation kinda renders lying unnecessary (pragmatically speaking) for many of the tricky situations in the OP and throughout …as for lying, I think it’s always a sin…I might be understanding and compassionate to a liar with good intentions, but that’s not the OP’s concern, let’s remember…the concern was just whether or not it’d be a sin, not whether or not we should have sympathy; not even whether or not it might be the “lesser” of two evils or a venial sin (which 1-Is a whole other issue and 2-Doesn’t mean it’s not sinful). The answer to the question at hand, I believe, is yes.

 

[LilyM]

USMC:

You will note of course that the following verse telling the righteous man to lie for his friends is conspicuously absent.

Yes but you’ll also note that there are no verses demanding that a man allow OTHERS to die because HE refuses to lie.

Of course one can and should look or a way to answer that doesn’t involve lying, or perhaps pray for a miracle that removes the temptation to lie.

But otherwise the duty to preserve innocent life is surely far higher in God’s eyes, and the duress in such situations makes the sin of lying low on the scale of venial sins.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Yes but you’ll also note that there are no verses demanding that a man allow OTHERS to die because HE refuses to lie.

Of course one can and should look or a way to answer that doesn’t involve lying, or perhaps pray for a miracle that removes the temptation to lie.

But otherwise the duty to preserve innocent life is surely far higher in God’s eyes, and the duress in such situations makes the sin of lying low on the scale of venial sins.

I don’t know that I’m inclined to agree. The paramount issue to preserve innocent life I divorce from preserving life in general. The Church demands the protection of the unborn child, yet allows as a last resort the execution of an enemy of the state, or the killing of combatants provided the war is just. The difference? The child is innocent of particular sin, the adults not so. Whereas duress is concerned, St. Laurence was flayed alive on a gridiron, yet would not renounce the faith. It doesn’t seem that he cared much for claiming duress either.

 

[USMC]

Yes but you’ll also note that there are no verses demanding that a man allow OTHERS to die because HE refuses to lie.

Of course one can and should look or a way to answer that doesn’t involve lying, or perhaps pray for a miracle that removes the temptation to lie.

But otherwise the duty to preserve innocent life is surely far higher in God’s eyes, and the duress in such situations makes the sin of lying low on the scale of venial sins.

No way. And who is to say the Jew is innocent? If he has ever sinned he is not.

Death is not an evil. It is a fact of life. Murder may be evil, but so is lying. It is, therefore, not permitted for one person to commit the sin of lying to prevent another from committing the sin of killing.

 

[USMC]

I don’t know that I’m inclined to agree. The paramount issue to preserve innocent life I divorce from preserving life in general. The Church demands the protection of the unborn child, yet allows as a last resort the execution of an enemy of the state, or the killing of combatants provided the war is just. The difference? The child is innocent of particular sin, the adults not so. Whereas duress is concerned, St. Laurence was flayed alive on a gridiron, yet would not renounce the faith. It doesn’t seem that he cared much for claiming duress either.

Another example to consider: In the Seminary, when Priests are taught about the seriousness of the seal of confession, they are given the example of a person who confesses to poisoning the wine to be used at Mass. If another Priest is going to celebrate Mass using that wine, the Priest is not allowed to act of the knowledge he obtain in the confessional in any way. They would have to allow the innocent Priest to drink the “wine” (that had been transubstantiated into the Precious Blood) and die.

That is an extreme example, but it is the one used in the Seminary.

If the priest is forbidden to act on the knowledge he received when hearing confession to protect the life of another Preist (or himself, for that matter), how is it appropriate to lie in order to protect the life of another?

If protecting the life of the innocent is the highest good, and therefore usurps the commandment that forbids lying, then surely it would also be greater than breaking the seal of confession, and therefore would allow the priest to act in such an extreme situation - but he is not!

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

No way. And who is to say the Jew is innocent? If he has ever sinned he is not.

Death is not an evil. It is a fact of life. Murder may be evil, but so is lying. It is, therefore, not permitted for one person to commit the sin of lying to prevent another from committing the sin of killing.

I’m sorry, but the deep structure of your thinking leaves me flabbergasted. Are you seriously saying that lying, with the intent and likilihood of saving blamesless life is on the same level as murder? If you are Catholic are you at all aware of the difference between mortal and venial sin. If a Jew, hiding from the depravations of a genocidal nation, is guilty of a single venial sin, that opens him up to being murdered??–Is THAT what you really mean???

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Another example to consider: In the Seminary, when Priests are taught about the seriousness of the seal of confession, they are given the example of a person who confesses to poisoning the wine to be used at Mass. If another Priest is going to celebrate Mass using that wine, the Priest is not allowed to act of the knowledge he obtain in the confessional in any way. They would have to allow the innocent Priest to drink the “wine” (that had been transubstantiated into the Precious Blood) and die.

That is an extreme example, but it is the one used in the Seminary.

If the priest is forbidden to act on the knowledge he received when hearing confession to protect the life of another Preist (or himself, for that matter), how is it appropriate to lie in order to protect the life of another?

If protecting the life of the innocent is the highest good, and therefore usurps the commandment that forbids lying, then surely it would also be greater than breaking the seal of confession, and therefore would allow the priest to act in such an extreme situation - but he is not!

Actually, to save life, the priest is personaly obligated to intervene–he cannot explain why he is doing so, except that it is under the seal of the confession. And IF said “seminary” teaches what you say (which I have increasing reason to doubt) then you’d better be forth coming with some citations

 

[KindredSoul]

Another example to consider: In the Seminary, when Priests are taught about the seriousness of the seal of confession, they are given the example of a person who confesses to poisoning the wine to be used at Mass. If another Priest is going to celebrate Mass using that wine, the Priest is not allowed to act of the knowledge he obtain in the confessional in any way. They would have to allow the innocent Priest to drink the “wine” (that had been transubstantiated into the Precious Blood) and die.

What?! Admittedly, I’m somewhat new to all this, but I was completely unaware that a Priest couldn’t act in any way, even one that doesn’t break the seal of confession! Is that to say that, if a person confesses that he has planted a bomb in his mother’s house, that the Priest cannot invite the mother to dinner (or something) to speak about something totally unrelated just so that she’ll “conveniently” miss the explosion? I find that utterly ridiculous, if that’s true! The Priest might have invited the mother to such anyway, and now he’s not allowed just because of the seal of confession?! In the same way, the Priest in your example might have interfered with the use of the wine anyway–perhaps by simply throwing it out before it’s consecrated (or something else if that’s still profane) but now he suddenly can’t do what he might (no matter how unlikely) have done anyway? Will someone please clear this up for me? I suspect that seminary might be going overboard–that sounds suspicious, untrue, and ludicrous!

 

[mark_a]

I believe one classic response has been one may be forced to do a minor (venial) sin to prevent the doing of a greater (mortal) sin, and the classic example of such:

Gestapo Officer: "Tell me Mrs Van Hort, do you know where there might be any Jews hiding around here?

Mrs Van Hort (Who has the Frank family in her attic) of course LIES

Or “does this dress look good on me?”

 

[LilyM]

I’m sorry, but the deep structure of your thinking leaves me flabbergasted. Are you seriously saying that lying, with the intent and likilihood of saving blamesless life is on the same level as murder? If you are Catholic are you at all aware of the difference between mortal and venial sin. If a Jew, hiding from the depravations of a genocidal nation, is guilty of a single venial sin, that opens him up to being murdered??–Is THAT what you really mean???

Exactly - lying to protect life (be it completely innocent or not) is low on the scale of lying - it’s not like it’s perjury or tax fraud or any such. It would be a venial sin without any reasonable doubt.

Delivering someone up to be tortured or killed, or else directly causing the death of your own family members, by your silence, should in the estimation of any right-thinking person be the far greater sin in the scheme of things.

Remember life is utterly sacred at every stage and in every condition - we look askance at contraception, abortion, oral sex, suicide and euthanasia for this very reason. Respect for truth is simply not so important.

How many Jews did the Pope hide in the Vatican during WWII? Numerous by all accounts. Do you think he or his staff were never asked if this were happening? Almost certainly they were, and I doubt that mere silence or obfuscation would have been an acceptable answer if they were asked. They probably lied. And yes, it was a sin if they did, but I don’t believe God would punish them severely for respecting the sanctity of life above the sanctity of truth.

 

[StMarkEofE]

I believe one classic response has been one may be forced to do a minor (venial) sin to prevent the doing of a greater (mortal) sin, and the classic example of such:

Gestapo Officer: "Tell me Mrs Van Hort, do you know where there might be any Jews hiding around here?

Mrs Van Hort (Who has the Frank family in her attic) of course LIES

A very complicated topic here. Do we approve the means to an end idea in the above case as a justifiable reason to lie. Not exactly but this white lie in my opinion can not conote a serious sin.

 

[patg]

What I gave was the teaching of Jesus. If you are shocked by the truth, what does that say about you?

Here’s the teaching of Jesus: “…all liers, shall have there part in the lake which burneth with fire …”.

Show me where the Bible teaches that lying is the right thing to do.

It says that the greatest commandment is to love. Lying to save someone you love - your child for instance - speaks to that commandment far more than the generic “Thou shalt not lie”.

You aren’t supposed to kill either yet their are many situations where killing is perfectly moral - and most, if not all, of those cases also involve the overriding commandment of love.

 

[AnnaTherese]

It’s possible to conceal the truth without telling an outright lie. We should not give false information unless there is a greater evil at hand and it’s a true emergency and you simply don’t have any clever words at hand. Parents conceal the truth all the time without tellings lies to their babies and toddlers. It’s called the art of distraction. The baby reaches for a sharp knife and mother says, “Can I interest you in this wooden spoon? Or how about a slice of cheese?” Saying “You can’t have that b/c…” and so begins the lecture. Not necessary. Just take it away and offer an alternative. It gets more complicated with adults b/c we’re not so easily distracted but it can work sometimes.

 

[JimG]

I might reverse the question to:
Is telling the truth always right?

And it seems to me that in many cases a great deal of damage is caused by truth telling. Sometimes truth-telling can be gossip, or detraction, or character assassination, or the destruction of trust, or the revealing of secrets and personal information to which others have no right. Or even the sale of state secrets. And those are all damaging uses of the truth. .

And if truth telling is sometimes wrong,
perhaps lying is sometimes right.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I might reverse the question to:
Is telling the truth always right?

And it seems to me that in many cases a great deal of damage is caused by truth telling. Sometimes truth-telling can be gossip, or detraction, or character assassination, or the destruction of trust, or the revealing of secrets and personal information to which others have no right. Or even the sale of state secrets. And those are all damaging uses of the truth. .

And if truth telling is sometimes wrong,
perhaps lying is sometimes right.

This is specifically why the Catechism says to hold your peace. Not lie, but remain silent:

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.

 

[rr1213]

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.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

A lie is always evil. In the immortal words of the late Michael Gray, “Don’t Go Tellin’ A Lie.”

 

[Zooey]

St. Thomas, Summa:

Question: Whether every lie is a sin:

I answer that: An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that “lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.” Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).

With respect: St Thomas Aquinas never had occasion to hide Jews from the Nazis.
**

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

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.
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 **
2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.
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. **

How, pray tell, is the Gestapo harmed by not knowing that Anne Frank is hiding in the attic??? Should I turn her over to the slaughterers, in the service of “truth”?
Jesus Christ **is **the Way, the Truth, & the Life. I had rather save one of His brethren, than to serve bloody Hitler…If I hang for that–so be it!!

The law of Jesus’ day forbade reaping on the Sabbath, & the disciples plucked grain & ate it. Who was right, pray tell? The Pharisees or Jesus??
The Catechism would appear to support Jesus, & condemn the self-righteous legalism of the Pharisees.

In any case, my own choice is made: “For I could wish that I were accursed from Christ for [His Jewish] brethren, [His] countrymen according to the flesh,who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, the eternally blessed God.”-- Romans 9:3.

But hey! That’s me…( with, it appears, St Paul the Apostle in my corner…).