O
ohseanacy
Guest
Is it permissible to deceive the enemy in a war situation?
- Status
R
Redratfish
Guest
I am pretty sure that if you are at war, as a soldier, you do what you can to stay alive.
Now, the people who are higher up and using things like torture, I do not know.
If I have said anything untrue, let someone correct me.
Now, the people who are higher up and using things like torture, I do not know.
If I have said anything untrue, let someone correct me.
T
Tietjen
Guest
Well, if you read the book of Judith in the OT you will see that God was pleased with her. Lying for the sake of lying is a sin. Lying to someone who has a legitimate and/or moral right to know the truth is a sin. Lying to someone who has no legitimate and/or moral right to know the truth is not a sin. IE - those who hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII were not sinning. Judith when she deceived the enemies of Israel was not sinning. A cop who is undercover is not sinning.
P
promethius
Guest
Meh. Define deceive in terms of war? In WWII, we set up fake tanks and boats off the coast of England. The germans looked at this and presupposed that the invasion would take place at a different location than it did. Are we to blame that they saw our toy boats and blow up tanks, and ASSUMED something that wasn’t true?
In OIF, CNN reported that sandstorms had stopped us cold and that our helicopters couldn’t fly. The Iraqis saw this and the revolutionary guard moved out of dug in positions to reenforce… just in time to be hit by the helicopters we had sent over the top of the sandstorm and suffer massive losses. Are we responsible for their poor assumption that CNN (which badly wanted us to be “bogged down” three days into the war) reported something incorrectly which turned out to be entirely false?
See, you don’t really LIE to an enemy during war. You can do some action which makes it appear you are going to move in one way, and then you really just have to rely on and hope that the enemy makes the wrong assumption. It’s not like Monty called up Hitler and said “Just so you know, we’re NOT invading Normandy… we’ll hit farther East and those tanks and boats you see accross the channel are DEFINITELY real…”
T
thistle
Guest
As you are allowed to kill the enemy why would you be worried about only deceiving them??
S
Scaun
Guest
I’d appriciate it if you could quote a passage from Judith which says Judith wasn’t doing something wrong.
Remember that just because a story is recorded in the Bible doesn’t mean the one doing it is justified. Abraham lied too, and so did one of his sons when they went to Egypt, and they did a wrong thing.
So yes, Judith may be justified, but I need a verse or something to see that it is as you say.
F
fakename
Guest
I’m pretty sure that lying is to seriously propose as true, a statement that you know is contrary to the other statements you hold to be true.
So I think that it is more likely that lying and deception in war is probably bad still.
So I think that it is more likely that lying and deception in war is probably bad still.
J
JimG
Guest
During WW-II England not only used fake inflatable tanks to fool the German aircraft and spies as to the location of their forces, they also used fake news stories. When England was being hit by German V-1 and V-2 rockets, false stories were reported in newspapers to mislead the Germans about where they actually landed. The intent was to cause them to retarget the rockets so they would fall short. Misinformation is a valuable tool in wartime. Providing false information about the where the Allied invasion would take place no doubt saved many lives, as it kept the German forces occupying France from mounting an immediate devastating counteroffensive.
Also, police forces mislead criminals in sting operations quite often in order make drug busts and other arrests. If you’ve ever watched the 20/20 program on adults sexually preying on children, you will note that it is a sting operation in which adults go on internet chat rooms and pretend to be kids–they lie about who they are. It results in many convictions.
When Pharaoh ordered the Egyptian midwives to kill the Israelite baby boys, they not only disobeyed, they lied: they told the authorities that the Israelite women were strong and delivered the babies before they arrived; that was not true. As a result Moses was saved.
Let’s not be too simplistic about this subject.
Also, police forces mislead criminals in sting operations quite often in order make drug busts and other arrests. If you’ve ever watched the 20/20 program on adults sexually preying on children, you will note that it is a sting operation in which adults go on internet chat rooms and pretend to be kids–they lie about who they are. It results in many convictions.
When Pharaoh ordered the Egyptian midwives to kill the Israelite baby boys, they not only disobeyed, they lied: they told the authorities that the Israelite women were strong and delivered the babies before they arrived; that was not true. As a result Moses was saved.
Let’s not be too simplistic about this subject.
F
fakename
Guest
At the very least the Egyptian women who talked about the delivered babies (stating that they were born before they arrived) were not saying anything contrary to what they believed -it is true that the babies were born before the women could arrive. So it wasn’t a lie.
(of course I would suggest reading the Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on “Lying” and such, it is probably a better expositor on morality than I am.)
T
Tietjen
Guest
Well, the book of Judith is not a long book so I’d invite you to read it, especially from chapter 10 forward. When you get to chapter 13, I believe that you will find most of the entire chapter praises Judith proclaiming that God was with her, guided her, and was with her as she went forward with her plan of deceiving Holofernes and then killing him. It can be found online here. Then in chapter 15 verse 10, we are told that God was pleased with what Judith wrought. As I said though, you should really read the entire book (20 chapters).
T
Tietjen
Guest
True. However, I am not saying that all lying isn’t sinful. What I am saying is that lying to someone who neither has a legitiment nor moral right to know the truth is not a sin. Lying for the sake of lying is a sin. Lying to someone who has a legitimate and moral right to know the truth is a sin. Lying to someone who has no right to the truth of a given situation and whose intention is to cause an evil after learning the truth, is not a sin.
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I went back and re-read Exodus 1:15-19, it still seems to me that the midwives deliberately misled the king. Verse 17 says “The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live.”
That sounds as though they were actually present at the birth and “let the boys live.” But they told the king that the women gave birth before the midwives arrived. Verse 20 goes on to say that “therefore, God dealt well with the midwives.”
T
thistle
Guest
No comment!!
T
Tietjen
Guest
C
CatholicBoy1957
Guest
I remember reading an excellent treatment on the subject in Fr. Hardon’s catechism. Page 401 begins the secion on lying and mental reservation. He says that we may never tell a lie.
books.google.com/books?id=3Ke37zpSv3gC&lpg=PP1&ots=5NXK3Quia8&dq=the%20catholic%20catechism%20hardon&pg=PA402#v=onepage&q=mental%20reservation&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=3Ke37zpSv3gC&lpg=PP1&ots=5NXK3Quia8&dq=the%20catholic%20catechism%20hardon&pg=PA402#v=onepage&q=mental%20reservation&f=false
T
Tietjen
Guest
I’ve heard the term before and I mean no disrespect to Fr. Hardon, but the “mental reservation” argument sounds like verbal gymnastics to me. The person asking a specific question is being told the answer to another question and is deceived into believing that the answer presented is the answer to his her question, when in fact the responder has internally changed the dynamics (and wording) of the question. For example, if you ask me, “How old are you?” and expect a truthful answer, under “mental reservation” I can change your question in my mind by adding to your question so that the new question is, “How old are you in 1985?” I can then answer you verbally and say “20 years old.” Mental reservation says that I have not lied and therefore have not sinned. However, the “asker” of the question was given an answer to a question that he did not ask and was left to believe that the answer given was to his original question.
So, I believe that “mental reservation” is simply a method used by some to “get around” their idea that all lying is sinful. They can say, “I didn’t lie. I used mental reservation” and that helps them get past the whole event. I’m okay with that since I agree with them that calling it mental reservation or calling it lying is irrelevant; the outcome is the same. The person being lied too (or mentally reserved?) is being just as deceived and the person doing the lying (or mental reservation) is the source of that deception. However in either case (or terminology) it is not always sinful.
J
JimG
Guest
I read part of the linked Fr. Hardon catechism. His treatment of the subject is quite detailed. I note that he does not consider telling a child about Santa Claus to be a lie. And he says that telling a caller that someone is not there, leaves open the possibility that they are there but not available to come to the phone, and so the reply is a valid use of mental reservation. I didn’t read far enough to see if he addresses cases where the very purpose of a reply is to deceive the listener, and the purpose of the deception is to prevent grave harm or violence.
He also says that “Lying is speaking contrary to what is on a person’s mind.”
But we are human beings. Our minds can be full of evil intentions, bad thoughts, potential gossip, potential detraction of others. A good deal of what is on a person’s mind ought not to be spoken, and sometimes should be deliberately concealed. If everyone spoke what was on their minds–and that seems to be the modern fashion–there is inevitably a great increase in sins of detraction.
Just thinking out loud here.
He also says that “Lying is speaking contrary to what is on a person’s mind.”
But we are human beings. Our minds can be full of evil intentions, bad thoughts, potential gossip, potential detraction of others. A good deal of what is on a person’s mind ought not to be spoken, and sometimes should be deliberately concealed. If everyone spoke what was on their minds–and that seems to be the modern fashion–there is inevitably a great increase in sins of detraction.
Just thinking out loud here.
T
Tietjen
Guest
Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t believe that telling a child about Santa Claus is a sin. However… my question to Fr. Hardon would be, “If it’s not a lie, what is it?” Maybe it would be better phrased if I said, “What prevents it from being a lie?” Is it the age of the child (IE - young children cannot be lied to)? Is it the fact that the stories (untruths) have been told over and over for generations so because it is “out there” continuing to put it “out there” is somehow less than a lie? My feeling on the matter is that “mental reservationists” believe that all lying is a sin. Therefore, in order to “get around” sinning, they will call the situation something else; in this case metal reservation. However, the truth is that if a parent (who knowingly understands that Santa doesn’t fly around in a sleigh delivering presents) tells his/her child that Santa exists, he/she is communicating misinformation to the child. The child, who believes that their parent always speaks the truth, will believe what they are told about Santa and is therefore effectively deceived. What… in this scenario is any different than lying about something else?! The ONLY difference between me and a mental reservationist is that I’m honest enough to call it what it is… LYING. Is it a sin whether it’s called by that name or by the name Fr. Hardon gives it? No. Either way, it is not a sin.
LOL… I laugh because as a child I was taught to take this scenario a step further. When a call came in and the caller asked for a parent (if they weren’t home) I would tell them to hold on a moment, set the phone down, yell to the parent asked for (who wasn’t in the house), yell that they had a phone call, pick back up the phone and promptly say, “He’s in the shower right now, can I take a message.”
Anyway, again I agree with Fr. Hardon that this situation is not a sin. I disagree with Fr. Hardon on whether this situation is a lie. I say it is… he says that’s its mental reservation. Either way, the outcome is exactly the same. The caller is being told misinformation and it’s not a sin because the caller has no legitimate or moral right to know the truth of whether or not my father was home when he called.
If I take a bottle of rat poison out and change the label of the bottle to sweetener, its remains rat poison. Calling it something else does not change what’s inside.
- Status