Is lying always wrong?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.​

These should help, despite their age - AFAIK, the CCC teaching on lying is stricter than it used to be, which is all to the good IMO - lies are best left to the devil, their father:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mental Reservation The name applied to a doctrine which has grown out of the common Catholic teaching about lying and which is its complement.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm - Similar pages

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Lying Catholic writers call statements like the foregoing mental reservations, … It should be observed that when a wide mental reservation is employed the …
www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm - Similar pages

The CCC:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1753
preview document matches
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
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1753.htm

The Eighth Commandment

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#2482

Hope that helps ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

The CCC seems not to say anything about it, which is curious ​

 

[deb1]

During Moses time the Hebrew midwives lied and God rewarded them.

Exodus 1:19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth ***before ***the midwife arrives.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives. …and because the midwives feard God, he built up families for them.

 

[USMC]

CCC 1753: **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. ** ."

If you think that quote from the Catechism sounds familiar, that is because it is EXACTLY what I have been saying.

The end does nto justify the means, and as such, lying is never allowed, even if the end pursued (saving the life of an innocent person) is good.

If you disagree, here is my question for you: Does the end justify the means?

 

[rr1213]

CCC 1753: **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. ."…If you disagree, here is my question for you: Does the end justify the means?

Ok, I’ll go out on the line on this one. Sometimes…depending on what exactly is the end and what is the means. I’ve given several examples in posts above where I think that the end justifies the means.

Here’s another…do you use extraordinary means to obtain from a captured terrorist the location of a hidden nuclear weapon that is scheduled to go off in NYC in two hours? This terrorist is the weak link in the terrorist network and you have solid reason to believe that, with a little bit of “presure”, he will tell you and he will tell you the truth (because he is a coward and fears what you will do to him if he is found to have lied). You have special bomb disposal squads stationed all over NYC ready to act…they just need to know where to go. If you simply announce to the populace that an atom bomb will go off in an hour, there will be mass chaos and, in any event, there is no way that you can effectively evacuate the city within that time frame. If the bomb explodes, you are looking at 8 million dead…minimum. So, USMC?

Or even to make it better…say that you don’t need to torture the terrorist, merely lie to him about something important to him so that he will tell you the location of the bomb. Something like, “we also have you sister in custody” or that “your terrorist comrades betrayed you to us”…

 

[MilesXpisti]

Ok, I’ll go out on the line on this one. Sometimes…depending on what exactly is the end and what is the means. I’ve given several examples in posts above where I think that the end justifies the means.

What you think is regardless of the divinely revealed Truth of the Church and provided to us concisely in the Catechism. As a Protestant, you may not feel that you are bound by the rules and subjectively you don’t have to follow them, but that doesn’t not change the objective moral reality of their concreteness.

Where Catholics are concerned, the Catechism is clear:

CCC 1753: 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.

Period.

 

[rr1213]

What you think is regardless of the divinely revealed Truth of the Church and provided to us concisely in the Catechism. As a Protestant, you may not feel that you are bound by the rules and subjectively you don’t have to follow them, but that doesn’t not change the objective moral reality of their concreteness.

Where Catholics are concerned, the Catechism is clear:

CCC 1753: 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.

Period.

…but mental reservation, also known as “lying” to most people, is acceptable.

 

[MyPhilomena]

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?

lying is a sin,period. no matter what the situation is, it is a sin. people should never lie no matter what situation it is, life or death. there is a matter of tact, and using that tact is better than lying about things. one of the ten commandments is not to lie. people can find ways to be tactful and tell the truth then to lie. the devil is the father of the lie, and that we must remember, and when we lie, we play right into his hands. i do not lie, no matter what the situation is.i use tact and truth.

if one thinks its okay to tell a “little white lie” then think again.would Christ tell such 'little white lies"? no. we must follow in his foosteps and do as he would do should we not? if Christ does not condone lies, and he does not tell them, why should we? i’d rather follow after him than play into the hands of the devil.

 

[Scottgun]

It is disheartening to watch otherwise probably good Catholics fall in for the heresy of consequentialism–this has been around since the beginning (Hence Paul’s admonition that we may not do evil that good may come of it), but recently it has become a societal pathological illness.

Scott

 

[MilesXpisti]

…but mental reservation, also known as “lying” to most people, is acceptable.

My concern is not what people think, but what the Church teaches. My morality is not built on community standard or popular opinion. And the Church’s communal teaching on equivocations is valid, though admittedly it would put me in an uncomfortable position. It all comes down to the mental affirmation made by the speaker. In the case of the murderer in your house, if the person says “No, there is no one else in the house” and in his mind he says “I’m going to lie to you so you’ll leave us alone”, the he lies and commits a sin, perhaps even a mortal one. But if he’s mentally saying “There is no one else in this house that wishes to be threatened by you” then he has at least in terms of intent, not spoken a falsehood. Thus, bridging that narrow pass between veracity and justice.

 

[rr1213]

My concern is not what people think, but what the Church teaches. My morality is not built on community standard or popular opinion. And the Church’s communal teaching on equivocations is valid, though admittedly it would put me in an uncomfortable position. It all comes down to the mental affirmation made by the speaker. In the case of the murderer in your house, if the person says “No, there is no one else in the house” and in his mind he says “I’m going to lie to you so you’ll leave us alone”, the he lies and commits a sin, perhaps even a mortal one. But if he’s mentally saying “There is no one else in this house that wishes to be threatened by you” then he has at least in terms of intent, not spoken a falsehood. Thus, bridging that narrow pass between veracity and justice.

Ok. Let me make it plain (as it probably already is for those who have read my posts) that in your example above I would lie to the murderer to save the life of the other person in the house. I am not sure that, under these facts, that this would be sin. Nonethless, I would probably still ask God for forgiveness because of my uncertainty. That said, the example you use of mental reservation:

         But if he's mentally saying "There is no one else in this house
         that wishes to be threatened by you" then he has at least in
         terms of intent, not spoken a falsehood.

…is amazing if you believe that you have not lied. You have stated a direct falsehood…“there is no else in this house”…and if you think that by completing the sentence in your mind with …“that wishes to be threatened by you”…somehow renders the falsehood into truth you are, with respect, simply fooling yourself. If you act similarly in a court of law while giving testimony under oath, you’ll also be committing perjury.

 

[KindredSoul]

Just to say so, I’ve read a little more on Mental Reservation, and I’m not so sure that I support that after all. I still believe that the examples I’ve given (distraction, changing the subject) in my earlier post aren’t lies, but I’m not so sure they fit under Mental Reservation either…Mental Reservation seems to be more like telling someone “Coal is never black” while thinking “If you paint it blue.” You could justify any outright lie that way…so on second thought Mental Reservation isn’t the word for what I was trying to say. It seems that Mental Reservation, by the way, is no longer acceptable to the Church from one of the articles I read…though that may not be true, it would make sense, for the reasons I just said.

 

[rr1213]

“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…

 

[KindredSoul]

Mental Reservation does seem to blur the lines between truth and lie too much for comfort…but again, I’m not so sure the Church still approves it, at least not if the words said aren’t true in and of themselves (without needing the person to be thinking something special).

To dodge the issue all together (without needing mental qualifiers to make your statement true) is a different story; by common reasoning that would be no more a lie than silence; in both cases, silence or dodging, you’re allowing a person to think what they will without ever actually saying anything that–even if it stands alone–is untrue. But I’m not at all sure if that falls under Mental Reservation or something totally different. If it does fall under Mental Reservation, I’d think that’s the only kind the Church still approves…maybe not, but it would stand to reason.

 

[MilesXpisti]

“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].

Incidental. In my original example, the speaker is saying that right then, at the moment.

rr1213:

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]

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.

rr1213:

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

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

Same answer here. Further, he is sinning my bearing false witness, because it appears that he’s trying to cast aspersions on the other passenger.

rr1213:

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…

Cute. Incorrect, but cute.

And as far as thinking that I’m fooling myself by saying that having mentally phrasing my though in a way such that my response is not a lie, I would ask the following. 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.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Mental Reservation does seem to blur the lines between truth and lie too much for comfort…but again, I’m not so sure the Church still approves it, at least not if the words said aren’t true in and of themselves (without needing the person to be thinking something special).

To dodge the issue all together (without needing mental qualifiers to make your statement true) is a different story; by common reasoning that would be no more a lie than silence; in both cases, silence or dodging, you’re allowing a person to think what they will without ever actually saying anything that–even if it stands alone–is untrue. But I’m not at all sure if that falls under Mental Reservation or something totally different. If it does fall under Mental Reservation, I’d think that’s the only kind the Church still approves…maybe not, but it would stand to reason.

I agree, Kindred. I myself would not be comfortable in doing so, but I feel that there is at least the possibility that it would function in accordance with moral theology. Action follows thought, and it is in thought that all good or evil action springs. As such, thought has as much to do with it as anything else.

And I agree that mental reservation can only function in the interest of supporting a moral justice, e.g. the Gestapo example.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

There is a lady in the Hall of Faith ( hebrews 11 ) for lying to protect human lives. So, in that rare case, lying is allowed.

 

[rr1213]

To dodge the issue all together (without needing mental qualifiers to make your statement true) is a different story; by common reasoning that would be no more a lie than silence; in both cases, silence or dodging, you’re allowing a person to think what they will without ever actually saying anything that–even if it stands alone–is untrue.

I agree. It is a different answer if the question is “is anyone else in the house” and you answer “no” because the person is in the garage, even though you know that the questioner considers the garage to be part of the house. In this case, you have not lied nor engaged in “mental reservation” but have simply answered the question, albeit you have done so knowing that your answer will mislead the questioner.

 

[vince2paul]

a family, parents & 5yo and 3yo children, get into a car accident, the husband died, and the wife has a weak heart, and for sure wouldn’t be able to hear such news at that moment or else she might die of heart attack. So she asked where the husband is. Should one lie to delay telling her the matter or just tell the truth and if the wife dies, it’s okay as long as I don’t commit sin by lying? She would know if one keep quiet when being asked.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Raphael the angel did not lie.
He represented himself as a brother, in the broader sense, because he was an angel assigned to that particular tribe. All the members of the same tribe in Tobit refer to themselves as brothers and sisters.

Ron