Is lying always wrong?

[rr1213]

MR does not apply, because the speaker is not affirming an act of charity or moral justice. He is not trying to protect another from harm, he is simply trying to avoid punishment for a mistake.

Christ told that to lust after another in your heart is committing adultery. Would you say that appreciating the beauty of another in a purely aesthetic way is tantamount to committing adultery? If not, then your affirm that your thoughts in a given action have great if not total bearing on whether your actions are sinful.

You say that MR does not apply because it is not the case of moral justice. Fine. I am simply trying to illustrate my point that “mental reservation” is merely “lying” by another name. Substitute something important, like your example of the murderer in the house. The principle is the same, all that you point out is that you should use the concept of “moral reservation” only in limited cases where the moral stakes are high. That’s good, but I think that my illustration still serves the purpose of demonstrating my point.

Does intent matter as to sin? Of course it does. But in the case of the use of “moral reservation” or a “lie” in order to save a life, the intent is the same…to deceive and misdirect the wrongdoer.

 

[rr1213]

Christ told that to lust after another in your heart is committing adultery. Would you say that appreciating the beauty of another in a purely aesthetic way is tantamount to committing adultery? If not, then your affirm that your thoughts in a given action have great if not total bearing on whether your actions are sinful.

I agree that appreciating the beauty of another in a purely aesthetic way is not adultry, although we are certainly walking along a fine line here. When I try this, I usually stumble and find myself on the wrong side of the line, so I try not to walk that line if you know what I mean.

 

[JimG]

"Ace86:

Is lying always wrong? Can one get away with “white lies”? Civilization is obviously based on people normally and always telling the truth. Suppose you lied to someone to make them feel better. Is that wrong? Or suppose there was some sort of emergency, and you say “It’s going to be okay”. Is that a lie?

All these are wrong, & never allowed - as is dissimulation, which is no less deceitful, so equally forbidden.​

Saying “it’s going to be OK” to someone during an emergency is a lie? Matter for confession? Suppose it really IS going to be OK? How do you know that things are going to turn out badly? In this case you seem to be saying that optimism, or at least the statemen of it, is sinful.

I’ll give another minor example that I read recently by a local newspaper columnist. She was discussing some songs that she liked in spite of questionable lyrics that she overlooked.

In the car, listening to a country station with her 6 year old daughter, they heard a song which included the line “she slept her way to the top.”

“Mom,” said the daughter, what does it mean, “she slept her way to the top.?”

“Well,” replied the Mom after brief thought, “it means she was really lazy and slept late and didn’t do much work, but just got lucky.” No further questions.

Guess that Mom better head to confession.

Or perhaps the personal exegesis of song lyrics for the protection of one’s children is not lying.

 

[JimG]

I’m sorry, but I can’t help but post another example which just occurred to me.

My own mom used to tell stories of growing up in the 1930’s and 40’s. She had a variety of jobs, and when she didn’t have a job she was always looking. One of the first questions an employer would ask her is “Do you have experience?” She always replied “sure” regardless of the job and whether or not she had done such a job before.

Quite often, she would get hired. On day two the boss would approach her and say something like, “Look, it’s obvious you’ve never done this before, but you’re a hard worker so you can stay on.”

I’ll leave it up to the moral theologians to cast the first stone.

 

[mchale]

I have been reflecting on the answers given in the thread, and I think the situation is rather complicated, and there may never be a clear answer in this life. Yes, the Cathecism does teach that lying is never permissible, but it also talks about how lies do damage to justice and charity. In the specific examples listed above, specifically where the life of another is at stake, it could be argued that not telling a lie does damage to justice and charity. During the WWII the Church definitely hid jews, and I seem to remember that they also faked conversions. If the church did the latter then it clearly lied in order to maintain charity.

I don’t know the answer, but I think if I was in the situation where a lie would save a life, that I would tell the lie hoping that if the lie was a sin that God’s mercy would forgive me for erring on the side of charity to my brother.

–
Bill

 

[MilesXpisti]

I’m sorry, but I can’t help but post another example which just occurred to me.

My own mom used to tell stories of growing up in the 1930’s and 40’s. She had a variety of jobs, and when she didn’t have a job she was always looking. One of the first questions an employer would ask her is “Do you have experience?” She always replied “sure” regardless of the job and whether or not she had done such a job before.

Quite often, she would get hired. On day two the boss would approach her and say something like, “Look, it’s obvious you’ve never done this before, but you’re a hard worker so you can stay on.”

I’ll leave it up to the moral theologians to cast the first stone.

There’s no real stone to be cast. Did she lie? Obviously. Did she sin? If she lied with full intent and deliberate consent of the will, absolutely. Were there consequences? I don’t know and it’s not my place to comment on the state of one’s soul. There’s not stone to be throne, merely an analysis of the moral certainty.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Does intent matter as to sin? Of course it does. But in the case of the use of “moral reservation” or a “lie” in order to save a life, the intent is the same…to deceive and misdirect the wrongdoer.

A mental reservation and a lie are not the same thing. A lie is an offence and injury of the truth. A mental reservation when coupled with the spoken word results in an equivocation, from the Latin meaning “saying the same thing”. For example, in the case of the Gestapo, the officer may have said “Are there any Jews here”, but his mental context of his questions was: “Are there any people here that should be sent to concetration camps or summarily executed on the spot?” The response, “No” was simply the resultant “No, there are no such people here.” This is not a lie. If the person, however, both mentally and verbally assented, “No, there are no Jews here.” Then this would be a lie. One is not a sin, the other is.

 

[rr1213]

A mental reservation and a lie are not the same thing. A lie is an offence and injury of the truth. A mental reservation when coupled with the spoken word results in an equivocation, from the Latin meaning “saying the same thing”. For example, in the case of the Gestapo, the officer may have said “Are there any Jews here”, but his mental context of his questions was: “Are there any people here that should be sent to concetration camps or summarily executed on the spot?” The response, “No” was simply the resultant “No, there are no such people here.” This is not a lie.

That’s where we disagree. The question is “are there any Jews here”, not “are there any people that should be sent to concentration camps…” To answer “no” to the first question (assuming that Jews are, indeed, present and hidden) is to lie. You are responding directly to a direct question and you are telling a falsehood. That is called a lie. Calling it a “moral reservation” in some attempt to maintain the moral highground does not make it any less a lie. Now, in my opinion for what it’s worth, this is a fine example of a justifiable lie, but it is still a lie nonetheless. Just because we tag a different name to it does not change the essence of the act.

 

[MilesXpisti]

That’s where we disagree. The question is “are there any Jews here”, not “are there any people that should be sent to concentration camps…” To answer “no” to the first question (assuming that Jews are, indeed, present and hidden) is to lie. You are responding directly to a direct question and you are telling a falsehood. That is called a lie. Calling it a “moral reservation” in some attempt to maintain the moral highground does not make it any less a lie. Now, in my opinion for what it’s worth, this is a fine example of a justifiable lie, but it is still a lie nonetheless. Just because we tag a different name to it does not change the essence of the act.

But you yourself affirmed that there was a difference between appreciating beauty aesthetically and carnally. Now in both cases, we are engaging another person visually. What casts moral character is the mental aspect. So to is the mental aspect of the gestapo example. Even though he asks if any Jews are present, his intent is not simply to cofirm their presence; his being there with a submachine gun and an idling truck full of other Jews does not speak well to his being a census-taker. His intent is clear, to detain and deport Jews, where they will most likely die sooner or later. So to is the intent paramount with the response of the person. They are not affirming that there are no Jews there, just that there are no Jews wishing to be detained.

But if we must disagree, then we must

 

[dch1983]

I have been reflecting on the answers given in the thread, and I think the situation is rather complicated, and there may never be a clear answer in this life. Yes, the Cathecism does teach that lying is never permissible, but it also talks about how lies do damage to justice and charity. In the specific examples listed above, specifically where the life of another is at stake, it could be argued that not telling a lie does damage to justice and charity. During the WWII the Church definitely hid jews, and I seem to remember that they also faked conversions. If the church did the latter then it clearly lied in order to maintain charity.

I don’t know the answer, but I think if I was in the situation where a lie would save a life, that I would tell the lie hoping that if the lie was a sin that God’s mercy would forgive me for erring on the side of charity to my brother.

–
Bill

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I can only wonder how anyone in good Christian charity could actually disagree with this conclusion. But clearly there are plenty posting here who do. To say that we are morally obligated to tell the truth - and in doing so hand an innocent life over to evil to be killed - is literally beyond my comprehension. What is moral about that?! It seems clear that both choices in this situation are immoral, but that one is clearly ‘less immoral’ than the other.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

… During the WWII the Church definitely hid jews, and I seem to remember that they also faked conversions. If the church did the latter then it clearly lied in order to maintain charity.

Bill

I think this point needs to be brought up again and again.

We are (many of us here) Catholics. We believe, as a matter of faith, binding on us all, that there IS a difference between venial and mortal sins. Venial sins can not damn us, mortal sins do. To be a Catholic and to ctry to claim that there is no distinction in the severity of sins, is to be a neo-Jasenist at best

 

[quasimodo]

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

I agree with the poster that said they’d take their chances with God.

Even if I grant that a grave sin is committed by lying in the situation above, we have not addressed (or I may have skipped over relevant posts) the question of culpability. To be guilty of grave sin you have to act deliberately and freely. Mrs. Van Hort would not have acted freely. Her culpability would have been severly limited - her guilt for the sin dramatically reduced - to nothing, IMHO. The Nazi officer who freely forced the situation bears the culpability and the burden of the sin. As would the officer and enlisted men who obeyed a clearly immoral command.

 

[Scottgun]

I agree with the poster that said they’d take their chances with God.

Even if I grant that a grave sin is committed by lying in the situation above, we have not addressed (or I may have skipped over relevant posts) the question of culpability. To be guilty of grave sin you have to act deliberately and freely. Mrs. Van Hort would not have acted freely. Her culpability would have been severly limited - her guilt for the sin dramatically reduced - to nothing, IMHO. The Nazi officer who freely forced the situation bears the culpability and the burden of the sin. As would the officer and enlisted men who obeyed a clearly immoral command.

You are right as far as culpability goes. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that being put under a sever test, that we would all pass with flying colors. Without some special grace, I would fail and resort to lying. BUT it would still be a failure. I may have sub-atomic sized culpability for failing, but lying remains objectively wrong in all circumstances.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I think this point needs to be brought up again and again.

We are (many of us here) Catholics. We believe, as a matter of faith, binding on us all, that there IS a difference between venial and mortal sins. Venial sins can not damn us, mortal sins do. To be a Catholic and to ctry to claim that there is no distinction in the severity of sins, is to be a neo-Jasenist at best

I’ll assume for a minute that this post was directed at me; if it wasn’t you have my apologies. I do not deny the separation between venial and mortal sin. The Deposit of Faith has been clear in this regard. I’m simply defying the idea that it’s objectively okay to lying in any circumstance. As I’ve stated many times, if put in the situation, I would remain silent, and if need be sacrifice my own life in the defense of others. But how would we know which degree of untruth would be venial in this case, and which mortal? Would an assailant provide us the time to pour of the writings of Church fathers, Councils and commentaries to decide a course of action? No. It seems that each of us that have posted would do according to what we felt in the situation. But I’ve yet to see any refutation to a response in the affirmative that lying is always wrong.

 

[dch1983]

But I’ve yet to see any refutation to a response in the affirmative that lying is always wrong.

So, if we accept that lying is always wrong, what do you make of the scenario we’ve been speaking about above? Would a Catholic be obligated to disclose to a nazi the hiding place of a jew to avoid lying? Or no?

 

[JimG]

Telling the truth can also be a sin. There are many examples of that, ranging from minor to major, from venial to mortal. I would venture to say that in our ordinary life, there are probably more instances where we have the opportunity and the desire to sin by telling the truth, the there are to sin by lying.

 

[rr1213]

So, if we accept that lying is always wrong, what do you make of the scenario we’ve been speaking about above? Would a Catholic be obligated to disclose to a nazi the hiding place of a jew to avoid lying? Or no?

…or better yet…let’s assume that there is no “mental reservation” available to this faithful Catholic which would suffice to adequately deceive the Gestapo Officer asking the question…then what?

 

[Scottgun]

Telling the truth can also be a sin. There are many examples of that, ranging from minor to major, from venial to mortal. I would venture to say that in our ordinary life, there are probably more instances where we have the opportunity and the desire to sin by telling the truth, the there are to sin by lying.

Yes. An example of that would be *detraction–*telling truths about other’s shortcomings or bad deeds for no good reason. Plain ol’ gossip as it were. Streetcar Named Desire is an entire play based on that lesson.

Scott

 

[LilyM]

Miles, you didn’t read post #43 about the Hebrew women, who in the OT lied to save the Israelite childen who were being slaughtered and were approved by God for their actions.

That right there is your evidence that lying is not always wrong when it’s done to save lives.

Let’s assume tha lying is always wrong just for the sake of argument. From a practical perspective if you keep silent, for sure you aren’t going to save the Jews. Those interrogating you will know or suspect that you’re silent because you’re hiding something and will ransack your house from top to bottom and find them.

You have effectively not just committed martyrdom but have sentenced your family and the Jews you may be hiding to torture or worse for your idiocy. That, by anyone’s standards, is a far greater sin.

Of course one should do one’d utmost not to sin at all. In a situation where there really appears to be no alternative to committing one sin or another and no miracle appears to be forthcoming to save us, common sense would bind us to the lesser of the alternative evils - in this case the lie.

 

[Scottgun]

Miles, you didn’t read post #43 about the Hebrew women, who in the OT lied to save the Israelite childen who were being slaughtered and were approved by God for their actions.

That right there is your evidence that lying is not always wrong when it’s done to save lives.

Yes, but note that the book is merely reporting a fact, not making a judgement about the rightness or wrongness of lying.

Let’s assume tha lying is always wrong just for the sake of argument. From a practical perspective if you keep silent, for sure you aren’t going to save the Jews. Those interrogating you will know or suspect that you’re silent because you’re hiding something and will ransack your house from top to bottom and find them.

You have effectively not just committed martyrdom but have sentenced your family and the Jews you may be hiding to torture or worse for your idiocy. That, by anyone’s standards, is a far greater sin.

Of course one should do one’d utmost not to sin at all. In a situation where there really appears to be no alternative to committing one sin or another and no miracle appears to be forthcoming to save us, common sense would bind us to the lesser of the alternative evils - in this case the lie.

This is the great Faustian bargain. Yes, keeping silent won’t make the Nazi’s go away, but neither will lying because they are going to assume no one is going to tell the truth and search anyway. Your best bet is to welcome into the house, offer them coffee and snacks and be so hospitable it puts them off their guard. Or something like it. Plenty of alternatives to lying.