Is lying always wrong?

[MilesXpisti]

…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?

Then you remain silent, or say that you can’t help them, and run the risk that you’ll be incarcerated.
ScottGunn:

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.

An excellent response.

As to LilyM, I don’t work in what-if, lesser-of-two-evils theology. I liken this to the great condoms/HIV debate. I cannot control what happens in the world, only what I would do and how it would affect my eternal reward. Lying would be a sin, remaining silent would not be. I can only do the morally correct thing and hold out hope that God in His mercy intervenes. No one is guaranteed tomorrow, only the chance to do the morally correct thing moment-to-moment.

 

[dch1983]

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.

This whole dialogue seems to be getting more complicated than necessary with these assumptions about what would have happened. Aren’t we discussing whether lying to save life in this type of situation is a better choice than not lying? Whether the Nazis in fact 1) go away on their own or, 2) are confused enough to forget about their task when you offer them coffee, is not the issue. At least, I didn’t think it was. Maybe I’m wrong. Personally, I’m really just trying to find out what the correct Catholic perspective on such a situation might be. The answer seems obvious to me but it’s clearly not here…

 

[dch1983]

As to LilyM, I don’t work in what-if, lesser-of-two-evils theology. I liken this to the great condoms/HIV debate. I cannot control what happens in the world, only what I would do and how it would affect my eternal reward. Lying would be a sin, remaining silent would not be. I can only do the morally correct thing and hold out hope that God in His mercy intervenes. No one is guaranteed tomorrow, only the chance to do the morally correct thing moment-to-moment.

I fail to see how sicking the Nazis on an innocent jew is the “morally correct” thing to do. Or telling a murderer who is demanding to know where your kids are hiding where they are… that’s “morally correct”??? Being silent or not lying would be failing to prevent an terrible immoral deed…

 

[MilesXpisti]

I fail to see how sicking the Nazis on an innocent jew is the “morally correct” thing to do. Or telling a murderer who is demanding to know where your kids are hiding where they are… that’s “morally correct”??? Being silent or not lying would be failing to prevent an terrible immoral deed…

My God, how many times is this going to be hashed out? You cannot support an immoral act as a means to a just end. You can’t objectively justify it. The Catechism on this is clear. Either you use the means of mental reservation, or you remain silent. Those are your morally justifiable options. Period. You can choose the immoral act and hope for the best, but it’ll never be justified. If it were possible, one could support anything from on-demand abortions to limit the damage caused to Earth by the human race, or harvesting human tissue or embryonic stem cells so that we could save the millions that die from cancer.

 

[dch1983]

My God, how many times is this going to be hashed out? You cannot support an immoral act as a means to a just end. You can’t objectively justify it. The Catechism on this is clear. Either you use the means of mental reservation, or you remain silent. Those are your morally justifiable options. Period. You can choose the immoral act and hope for the best, but it’ll never be justified. If it were possible, one could support anything from on-demand abortions to limit the damage caused to Earth by the human race, or harvesting human tissue or embryonic stem cells so that we could save the millions that die from cancer.

To compare this matter to one that attempts to justify the grave immoralities that are abortion or embryonic stem cell research is just ridiculous. This argument is not on par with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, which was recently debated on here, and which I believe to be a better example of your “ends not justifying the means” position. I’m glad to know that you are not my judge nor my maker. I will trust that God will consider the circumstance and that I will not be damned to hell for doing my part to help prevent the grave immoralities of the holocaust or other acts of murder. If you would willingly hand over your children to a murderer rather than lie about their whereabouts, I can only pray for you for making that decision…

 

[dch1983]

My God, how many times is this going to be hashed out?

Furthermore, just a suggestion for the future: When conversing over matters such as this with a non-Catholic who is searching for truth and being led to the Catholic faith, closed-minded, uncharitable responses do not reflect well on yourself or the faith you represent. It is not your position on this hypothetical situation that is disheartening… it is the demeaning, authoritative manner in which you present it. Just something for you to consider. For now, I will leave this thread.

 

[Ace86]

*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.
*

Okay, thanks everyone for your answers so far. I didn’t expect this thread to become so large.

Concerning the Nazis and Jews example: If one was hiding Jews in your house, then one should do everything possible for their safety and life.

If you decided to tell the truth, then I would hope that you would add “Over my dead body” - because then you would not be lying, and then you would be doing everything in your power to save their lives. Just because they might die doesn’t mean that you are responsible for their deaths, because you would be attempting to defend their lives (even if the chances were slim in actually saving their lives). But if you tell the Truth, then you are doing everything you can possibly do to save their lives at that very moment.

Now if you decided to lie, then it would be a sin. The question was “Is lying always wrong?” And I think the answer is YES.

 

[deb1]

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

Actually, God *rewarded *the Hebrew women for lying. **Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with themidwives. The people, too increased and grew strong and because the midwifes feared God, he built up families for them **

The biblical section can be found in Exodus 1:15-21 Please look it up for yourselves.

I accidentally wrote in another post that this was found in chapter 2 but it is actually found in chapter 1. Sorry about that.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Furthermore, just a suggestion for the future: When conversing over matters such as this with a non-Catholic who is searching for truth and being led to the Catholic faith, closed-minded, uncharitable responses do not reflect well on yourself or the faith you represent. It is not your position on this hypothetical situation that is disheartening… it is the demeaning, authoritative manner in which you present it. Just something for you to consider. For now, I will leave this thread.

I appreciate that you do not care for the manner in which I present the faith, but that is not my concern. If you were not conversant in moral theology, or this a simple question was asked the situation would be different, as many in the RCIA class I help teach would attest. But this is a board where theology is debated. A question was asked, and it was answered definitively by the Catechism of Catholic Church some forty or fifty posts ago, yet debate persisted. That is not a search for truth, that’s beating a dead horse to death. If you’re asking me to look at this from another perspective, that’s something I can’t do. For a Catholic recognizing the infallible authority of the Church in all matters of faith, the debate is ended. What others choose to do with the information is entirely up to them.

I will say, though, that if you were offended by the context or manner of my responses and you are discouraged by me, to place the blame on me and not on the Church. In this respect I beg forgiveness, but only for the failing of my manner, not the inerrancy of the Faith professed by the Church. There is a line and good and evil are on either side of it. I know where I choose to step. I thank you for your discourse.

 

[Catholic90]

It is not acceptable to lie, … The end does not justify the means.

Lying …might lessen the guilt associated with the lie, but it is still a sin to lie.

“Honey, does this dress make my backside look fat?” (horizontal striped pants on a larger woman)

“Sweetheart, did you like what I picked out for your present?” (a very ugly sweater that is not at all your style)

“Did you like the dinner I cooked for you?” (you’ve never liked fish and the vegetables were mush)

A neighbor asks if you enjoyed the party they hosted. (you were bored silly)

 

[MilesXpisti]

Actually, God *rewarded *the Hebrew women for lying. **Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with themidwives. The people, too increased and grew strong and because the midwifes feared God, he built up families for them **

The biblical section can be found in Exodus 1:15-21 Please look it up for yourselves.

I accidentally wrote in another post that this was found in chapter 2 but it is actually found in chapter 1. Sorry about that.

There are two possibilities to be had here. First is possibility the midwives were not lying and the grace of God did in fact shorten the births of the women. But even if they did lie, God rewarded them for fearing him, not because they saved the children.

Per the D-R Bible:

Exodus 1

21 And because the midwives feared God, he built them houses. 22 Pharao therefore charged all his people, saying: Whatsoever shall be born of the male sex, ye shall cast into the river: whatsoever of the female, ye shall save alive.

 

[JimG]

“Honey, does this dress make my backside look fat?” (horizontal striped pants on a larger woman)

“Sweetheart, did you like what I picked out for your present?” (a very ugly sweater that is not at all your style)

“Did you like the dinner I cooked for you?” (you’ve never liked fish and the vegetables were mush)

A neighbor asks if you enjoyed the party they hosted. (you were bored silly)

Nobody answered my question about the song lyrics in post #63, so I’m not sure this will get addressed either. But in my view, the correct answers to the above are no, yes, sure, and yes of course. Sometimes there is a fine distinction between telling the truth and being rude.

 

[Steadfast_love]

www.vatican.va NAB John 7:6-11
6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up [4] to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee. 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but (as it were) in secret.

Here’s what the footnote [4] says:

[4] I am not going up: an early attested reading “not yet” seems a correction, since Jesus in the story does go up to the feast. “Go up,” in a play on words, refers not only to going up to Jerusalem but also to exaltation at the cross, resurrection, and ascension; cf ⇒ John 3:14; ⇒ 6:62; ⇒ 20:17.

So if Jesus could say he’s not going up to the feast but then go to the feast because “Go up” was a play on words, couldn’t I as a catechuminate do a similar play on words and keep the Jews in my attic not openly but (as it were) in secret?

 

[Zooey]

To compare this matter to one that attempts to justify the grave immoralities that are abortion or embryonic stem cell research is just ridiculous. This argument is not on par with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, which was recently debated on here, and which I believe to be a better example of your “ends not justifying the means” position. I’m glad to know that you are not my judge nor my maker. I will trust that God will consider the circumstance and that I will not be damned to hell for doing my part to help prevent the grave immoralities of the holocaust or other acts of murder. If you would willingly hand over your children to a murderer rather than lie about their whereabouts, I can only pray for you for making that decision…

Agreed…

Actually, God *rewarded *the Hebrew women for lying. **Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with themidwives. The people, too increased and grew strong and because the midwifes feared God, he built up families for them **

The biblical section can be found in Exodus 1:15-21 Please look it up for yourselves.

I accidentally wrote in another post that this was found in chapter 2 but it is actually found in chapter 1. Sorry about that.

thank you…I could not find the reference…

---

For those who insist that saying there are no Jews in the attic when there are in fact, Jews in the attic, & Nazis in the front hall is some kind of sin::crying: :crying: :crying: :nope: :nope: …

I’m sorry, but I can’t help but think that, given the choice of being punished by God for telling a lie that saved those Jews’ lies, & risking being Matthew 25’d straight into hell, I’ll *still *go with saying there are no Jews in the attic.
At least, I hope I would. I make no pretense at being heroic.

 

[MilesXpisti]

thank you…I could not find the reference…

Both the Douay-Rheims Bible annotation and Summa Theologica agree on the fact that it was for their fear of the Lord that the midwives were rewarded, not for their lie. And by extension, the good act of preserving life coupled with the sin of lying warranted only a material reward, in this case the building of houses, rather than a spiritual reward.

 

[dch1983]

I appreciate that you do not care for the manner in which I present the faith, but that is not my concern. If you were not conversant in moral theology, or this a simple question was asked the situation would be different, as many in the RCIA class I help teach would attest. But this is a board where theology is debated. A question was asked, and it was answered definitively by the Catechism of Catholic Church some forty or fifty posts ago, yet debate persisted. That is not a search for truth, that’s beating a dead horse to death. If you’re asking me to look at this from another perspective, that’s something I can’t do. For a Catholic recognizing the infallible authority of the Church in all matters of faith, the debate is ended. What others choose to do with the information is entirely up to them.

I will say, though, that if you were offended by the context or manner of my responses and you are discouraged by me, to place the blame on me and not on the Church. In this respect I beg forgiveness, but only for the failing of my manner, not the inerrancy of the Faith professed by the Church. There is a line and good and evil are on either side of it. I know where I choose to step. I thank you for your discourse.

My question, then, is why do all Catholics not apply these morals the same way? Because, clearly, there are many good Catholics here who would act in the same way as I, believing that God would be merciful for their reason for lying. I should say - because I haven’t yet - that lying, as a whole, is wrong and should be avoided. This scenario just doesn’t seem as cut and dry.
I do have another question, in all sincerity (anyone feel free to help me here): Is the Chatechism supposed to be a rule book (as many Evangelicals mistakenly use the Bible) or a guide to living a good Catholic life? My impression was that it is the latter, but I may be wrong.

 

[MilesXpisti]

My question, then, is why do all Catholics not apply these morals the same way? Because, clearly, there are many good Catholics here who would act in the same way as I, believing that God would be merciful for their reason for lying. I should say - because I haven’t yet - that lying, as a whole, is wrong and should be avoided. This scenario just doesn’t seem as cut and dry.
I do have another question, in all sincerity (anyone feel free to help me here): Is the Chatechism supposed to be a rule book (as many Evangelicals mistakenly use the Bible) or a guide to living a good Catholic life? My impression was that it is the latter, but I may be wrong.

The Catechism is intended to condense the entire theology of the Church, everything that must be affirmed by the faithful, into clear and concise language. Rather than having to hunt down related verses spread across the Scripture, it gives an explanation of the driving morality, and uses Scripture and other sources (Sacred Tradition, Pontifical Documents), etc. for support.

In answer to your first question, it’s the same as any one of any religion who does things how they feel they should: a question of authority. Most Catholics with which I’m associated all accept the authority of the Church to define all matters of faith and morals (and certainly where a Pontiff speaks, on disciplines as well), but the degree to which they accept that authority in everyday situations varies. I’ve always been a purist about it; I accept the inerrancy of the Faith without hesitation and try to apply it to my every action. Some might call that legalism, but that doesn’t really bother me. Other Catholics do not. I will not presume to judge the state of their souls, but one can see the fruit of those people and those generations that have rebelled against the Church’s teaching.

 

[quasimodo]

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.

So by God’s grace you would spill the beans and turn them over?

I doubt that is the way God would want his grace to be used.

WRT to the midwives - God was “kind” to them or “dealt well with them”- in other words, he gave them grace. Israel increased because of the lie and the midwives recieved God’s grace.

The midwives were innocent doves acting like foxes for the benefit of God’s children. Go thou and do likewise.

 

[MilesXpisti]

So by God’s grace you would spill the beans and turn them over?

I doubt that is the way God would want his grace to be used.

WRT to the midwives - God was “kind” to them or “dealt well with them”- in other words, he gave them grace. Israel increased because of the lie and the midwives recieved God’s grace.

The midwives were innocent doves acting like foxes for the benefit of God’s children. Go thou and do likewise.

No, not because of the lie. Because they feared God. It’s state explicitly in verse 22 of Exodus 1; their fear of God was the cause of their reward, not their lie to Pharaoh.

 

[quasimodo]

No, not because of the lie. Because they feared God. It’s state explicitly in verse 22 of Exodus 1; their fear of God was the cause of their reward, not their lie to Pharaoh.

Well, I don’t see where I said they were rewarded for lying, but have it your way …

They were rewarded for their fear of the Lord. How was their fear of the Lord manifested, according to scripture?