Is lying to the enemy during war a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter readsalot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

readsalot

Guest
I was researching this subject on several other web sites:

Are lying in the following real-world scenarios considered an actual sin:
  1. A DEA agent goes deep undercover to join Hell’s Angels. He tells them he is from another drug biker gang from Texas and wants to get in with them. After a year, he finally gets admitted, and provides names and dates to the DEA, which then arrests hundreds of drug people. Was it a sin for him to lie about who he was?
  2. A psych takes people hostage and kills several. During negotiations with the police, he says he is going to kill the children, one every hour, until his demands for a helicopter and money are met. The negotiator calls him back and says that they have the helicopter and the money ready. The bad guy releases all of the kids, then finds out the cops were lying and is then arrested. Is the negotiator sinning?
  3. An Allied spy creates fake passport and ID info and lies to get into German territory during WWII. He destroys the plant where the Germans were researching plans for an atomic bomb. The Germans are not able to reconstruct the plant in time to make the bomb before the war is over. Is the agent sinning?
  4. An Italian Monsignor issues fake baptismal certificates to thousands of Jews in order to fool the Nazi’s into releasing them instead of gassing them. Is the Monsignor sinning?
I have read much on the subject of lying as it has been debated and studied by Church theologians over the centuries, and I have perused some other sites, but I haven’t received any clear answer. I’d appreciate any well-thought answers, especially ones that are backed up with examples from the Church.🤷
 
None of this is sin. The issue is intent which the Church has always recognized as a key component of sin*. In legal circles this is claimed as duress which means in a state of danger or fear (perceived danger) one has the right to life over the right to truth. The Church address duress slightly differently using the intent angle. For example in your list you have a Priest whose intent was to prevent the death of the innocent and would lie to achieve that. Actually all your cases were similarly extreme. However if my wife burns dinner and says “How was it?” and I reply “ It is good, it turned out well” that may well be a factual lie yet the intent is to reduce her pain from the cooking error, so the incident does not constitute sin even though it contains a lie. I would suggest you look for your Church teaching through reading “sin” and particularly the types and forms. The reading is cumbersome however it will contain your answers

*A few argue that it is possible to sin without intent however those are extreme arguments and not widely accepted
 
I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject of sin. But I was reading that lying is always wrong. The examples I have given are not extreme, they are true. Every single example is in history.

Some theologians have believed that duress is not a justification for lying. And others have said that lying is intrinsically evil. Thomas Aquinas believed it was always a sin to lie, and wrote a well thought out piece on that.

If he is correct, does that mean that you cannot commit a venial sin in order to stop a huge mortal sin? I guess that is what I am asking.
 
Ah, but who’s huge mortal sin would you be stopping? Someone else’s?

VC
 
Well, in the sense that we are not morally responsible for another’s actions (except in the case of scandal, etc.).

In other words, the fact that a murderer is going to commit a sin of murder does not obligate me to ALSO commit a sin. I would guess that in many cases where this scenario comes up either a) you aren’t really sure if the person being lied to is going to commit a sin in the first place or b) the person being lied to has already committed a sin of desire (i.e. he has already decided to do what he sets out to do: murder, drug dealing what have you). In either case compounding the number of sins by presumably adding your own sin doesn’t seem necessarily beneficial.

I agree with you that the issue of lying is a thorny moral problem, and a very complex issue – and I agree that St. Thomas has a very convincing position (as does Augustine) on the immorality of all lies.

VC
 
I take the simple common sense approach. In the cases cited the person “lied” to had no right to the truth. If there is no right there is no lie. In every day life we get a thousand questions. Many times the answer is no ones business but my own. They do not have any right to the truth and if they press for an answer they are going to get an evasion of the facts. It requires some judgement as to what is to be said in each case because some people do deserve a factual answer…
 
readsalot said:
I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject of sin. But I was reading that lying is always wrong. The examples I have given are not extreme, they are true. Every single example is in history.

Some theologians have believed that duress is not a justification for lying. And others have said that lying is intrinsically evil. Thomas Aquinas believed it was always a sin to lie, and wrote a well thought out piece on that.

If he is correct, does that mean that you cannot commit a venial sin in order to stop a huge mortal sin? I guess that is what I am asking.
Click to expand...
The Apologists in this forum have given answers to similar questions. the common theme is that lying is sinful, but it’s not lying if the person doesn’t have the right to that information. So, the Nazis didn’t have the right to know who was Jewish, the abductor didn’t have the right to know he’d been duped, and so on…i forget your other examples…
 
readsalot said:
I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject of sin. But I was reading that lying is always wrong. The examples I have given are not extreme, they are true. Every single example is in history.

Some theologians have believed that duress is not a justification for lying. And others have said that lying is intrinsically evil. Thomas Aquinas believed it was always a sin to lie, and wrote a well thought out piece on that.

If he is correct, does that mean that you cannot commit a venial sin in order to stop a huge mortal sin? I guess that is what I am asking.
Click to expand...
Does the Church celebrate Christmas on Dec 25? Does the Church clearly explain it is unlikely this was Christ’s birthday? Is the Church decieving people? what does that mean if one uses your logic?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Does the Church celebrate Christmas on Dec 25? Does the Church clearly explain it is unlikely this was Christ’s birthday? Is the Church decieving people? what does that mean if one uses your logic?
Click to expand...
I think I may not have made my point clear, so I’ll see if I can do better:

Lying is a sin. (I am not talking about your example above, I am referencing something like the first set of examples I gave.)

In times of grave danger and seeming necessity, such as during a war or in fighting crime, it ***appears ***that lying is somewhat justified. In the cases I cited (I am a history buff and these examples are all real), on the surface it seems like lying is OK for the situation, i.e. tell a lie to a killer and save the lives of innocent people. The lie directly saves the people.

There is the issue. If lying is always a sin, even a venial one, it seems counterintuitive in these cases. For instance, what do you think God said to that Monsignor that saved the tens of thousands of Jews through his false baptismal certificates? Was God mad that he sinned by lying, or glad that he saved all of those people from the gas chamber?

I hope I explained it more clearly this time.

Could it fall into the category of a weapon of a just war? Just as it would be wrong for me to walk up and shoot someone and kill them for no reason, it is different if I am in war and fighting the enemy. In that case, it is not a sin to kill him. Could not lying fit into this? I am not to lie to an individual, but if I am in war, can I not use that as a moral weapon, just like a gun?
 
Sometimes the journey to truth becomes better than the actual answer. The bible, particularly the Jewish nation’s trek to the promise land, is a wonderfull beginning.

Hower, should you lack patience or time, simply ask yourself: To what end is the lie being used? To ultimately bring glory to God, or to detract such glory? The answer, without a doubt, will continuously bloom. Standing the test of time, for all time.
 
Spirithound said:
The Apologists in this forum have given answers to similar questions. the common theme is that lying is sinful, but it’s not lying if the person doesn’t have the right to that information . …
Click to expand...
Hi Spirithound,

I’m not sure if that is the common theme. If you do an advanced search for the word “lying” in the Ask the Apologist forum, I think you come up more or less evenly split between lying is always objectively wrong, and a less strict view which admits of certain occasions when a direct lie is permissible.

The former view (exemplified here and here) does take into account the lessing of culpability due to fear, etc., and also the distinction between a direct lie and mental reservation.

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hi Spirithound,

I’m not sure if that is the common theme. If you do an advanced search for the word “lying” in the Ask the Apologist forum, I think you come up more or less evenly split between lying is always objectively wrong, and a less strict view which admits of certain occasions when a direct lie is permissible.

The former view (exemplified here and here) does take into account the lessing of culpability due to fear, etc., and also the distinction between a direct lie and mental reservation.

VC
Click to expand...
Good evening Verbum Caro
The link that you showed above (not trying to nitpick, but both of your links go to the same page) also shows my opinion, regarding a person’s right to the truth, backed up by CCC 2489. Michelle Arnold also talks about lessening of culpability, and I think we can synthesize both of her statements.
 
Oops! The other link was intended to go here. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Spirit, I’m not sure what your position is exactly (did you tell us?), but I was speaking only to the part of your post which indicated that the apologists generally think that “it is not lying if the person doesn’t have the right to that information.” I don’t think that is the general position of the apologists.

As a side note, as for the position itself, its hard to reconcile that position with the portion of the Catechism that you mentioned. The Catechism only mentions “not *revealing *the truth” to someone who doesn’t have a right to know it – and mentions remaining silent or using discreet language as examples. It doesn’t seem to contemplate actually lying.

What do you think?
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Spirit, I’m not sure what your position is exactly (did you tell us?), but I was speaking only to the part of your post which indicated that the apologists generally think that “it is not lying if the person doesn’t have the right to that information.” I don’t think that is the general position of the apologists.

As a side note, as for the position itself, its hard to reconcile that position with the portion of the Catechism that you mentioned. The Catechism only mentions “not *revealing *the truth” to someone who doesn’t have a right to know it – and mentions remaining silent or using discreet language as examples. It doesn’t seem to contemplate actually lying.
Click to expand...
Hi VC, I understand your intent now in your post, and it is now apparent to me that there is no “general” position of the apologists. Thank you for your interpretation of the Catechism, I hadn’t really thought of it like that, “not revealing the truth” not equalling “lying”. Methinks I shall have to de-simplify my understandings there.
S/h
 
readsalot said:
I think I may not have made my point clear, so I’ll see if I can do better:…
Click to expand...
I think I understand you well. Let me speak bluntly. It seems to me the key to your issue is a desire to hold that lying in inherently evil. This assumption most reject as a false assumption yet you, Kant, and Thomas Aquinas* and some others wish to prove it true. The inability to prove it true is your frustration. Yet the mind is closed to accepting it as false. This develops a crippling position. As a scientist I know unproven assumptions may be used however I must understand these unproven assumptions open the door to failure and problems. Frankly, I think that is your issue The Priest in your example does not appear to fail your standard in the larger sense(he performs the greater good), however he clearly fails your standard in the smaller sense(lying), thus you must condemn his heroic work.

If you go to newadvent.org and enter ‘lying’ in the search you will see many opinions
  • I’ll take your statement as correct as I have no personal knowledge on Mr Aquinas
 
Spirithound said:
Hi VC, I understand your intent now in your post, and it is now apparent to me that there is no “general” position of the apologists. Thank you for your interpretation of the Catechism, I hadn’t really thought of it like that, “not revealing the truth” not equalling “lying”. Methinks I shall have to de-simplify my understandings there.
S/h
Click to expand...
Hi Spirithound,

I’m with you. Its not a simple issue at all, it has been quite a thorny problem for the best and holiest minds of the Church for ages.

I think that understanding the distinction between “not revealing the truth” and lying is of critical importance in our discussions. Often a claim is made that if someone doesn’t have a right to know the truth then you can lie to that person. But there is a difference between not having a right to know the truth and not having a right to be *told *the truth. In other words, just because I do not have a right to all information doesn’t mean that I should be lied to.

In most cases a response of “I cannot say” or “I am not at liberty to discuss that” or “That is privileged information” or the more clever answer in the face of an overly inquisitive person “Why do you ask?” would all be excellent responses. However there are a few, very uncommon cases such as described by **readsalot **where it would seem that any evasion would amount to an admission, and to make matters worse jeopardize the well-being of yourself or other innocents. That is where it gets thorny.

VC
 
Texas_Roofer said:
I think I understand you well. Let me speak bluntly. It seems to me the key to your issue is a desire to hold that lying in inherently evil. This assumption most reject as a false assumption yet you, Kant, and Thomas Aquinas* and some others wish to prove it true. The inability to prove it true is your frustration. Yet the mind is closed to accepting it as false. This develops a crippling position. As a scientist I know unproven assumptions may be used however I must understand these unproven assumptions open the door to failure and problems. Frankly, I think that is your issue The Priest in your example does not appear to fail your standard in the larger sense(he performs the greater good), however he clearly fails your standard in the smaller sense(lying), thus you must condemn his heroic work.

If you go to newadvent.org and enter ‘lying’ in the search you will see many opinions
  • I’ll take your statement as correct as I have no personal knowledge on Mr Aquinas
Click to expand...
You may understand my question, but not me. I don’t feel tied one way or the other. I am in the process of trying to learn and come to a conclusion that is consistent with other, larger truths.

When you say most reject as false, can you tell me who those people are?

Where did you get the idea that I was condemning anyone? Did I say that somewhere? I think all of my examples were performed exactly the way I would have done them. I just wanted to hear how to reconcile with the belief, at least by some esteemed theologians, that lying is always immoral.

I never said what they did was a mortal sin, or they were going to hell, or even that it was, indeed, a venial sin. I am asking if anybody could explain the contradiction. I assumed that one of two answers would be something like:
  1. Lying is not always wrong
    or​
  2. If lying is always wrong, then when faced with two sins, choose the lesser
Do you understand now?

That is the essence of my questioning.
 
readsalot,

I know you directed your post primarily to Texasroofer, but would you mind if I addressed the two options you gave?

VC
 
No, I would not mind at all. That is what I wanted, a discussion of the answers, or or answers I had not heard to this problem.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top