Lying and undercover work

[Shralp]

Ok, this isn’t my situation, but I’m interested in it.

Is it ethical for a Catholic to be an undercover cop if his cover requires him to lie to people, even to those who would not necessarily threaten his life if he told the truth?

For example, say Officer John Krupke goes undercover as a Starbucks barrista named Biff and is going to work uptown in the hopes of overhearing some Mafia toughs who frequent the place.

A.) His mom calls and asks if he got the job as an undercover cop. Knowing that it’s likely that his mother will tell other people, which could endanger him if word gets back to the Mafioso, Krupke tells her that he did NOT get the job. Is that a sin?

B.) On his way to the job, while he is still in police uniform, a friend asks him what he’s doing that day. Krupke says, “I’ve been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use.” Is that a sin?

C.) Once he’s on the job and undercover, someone asks him his name. Krupke doesn’t know the person, but doesn’t think he’s Mafia, but he says “Biff.” Is that a sin?

D.) The Mafia types come into Starbucks. One of them thinks he recognizes Krupke and asks him directly if he’s a cop. Krupke says “no.” Is that a sin?

 

[Liberian]

Shralp:

Ok, this isn’t my situation, but I’m interested in it.

Is it ethical for a Catholic to be an undercover cop if his cover requires him to lie to people, even to those who would not necessarily threaten his life if he told the truth?

For example, say Officer John Krupke goes undercover as a Starbucks barrista named Biff and is going to work uptown in the hopes of overhearing some Mafia toughs who frequent the place.

A.) His mom calls and asks if he got the job as an undercover cop. Knowing that it’s likely that his mother will tell other people, which could endanger him if word gets back to the Mafioso, Krupke tells her that he did NOT get the job. Is that a sin?

B.) On his way to the job, while he is still in police uniform, a friend asks him what he’s doing that day. Krupke says, “I’ve been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use.” Is that a sin?

C.) Once he’s on the job and undercover, someone asks him his name. Krupke doesn’t know the person, but doesn’t think he’s Mafia, but he says “Biff.” Is that a sin?

D.) The Mafia types come into Starbucks. One of them thinks he recognizes Krupke and asks him directly if he’s a cop. Krupke says “no.” Is that a sin?

Shralp,

I would submit to you that the answer in each case is “no.” The ultimate purpose of Officer Krupke’s lying through his teeth is not to deceive, but rather to catch bad guys and incidentally to keep his skin intact.

• Liberian

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Liberian:

Shralp,

I would submit to you that the answer in each case is “no.” The ultimate purpose of Officer Krupke’s lying through his teeth is not to deceive, but rather to catch bad guys and incidentally to keep his skin intact.

• Liberian

I agree with you.

Many on this forum have argued vehemently that lying in any form is intrinsically evil.

Sometimes I think this goes beyond undercover work and into entrapment, for example when the police had a big “sting” operation here several years ago, the police sold drugs to kids for several months from a couple different undercover places, until they gained their confidence or whatever they were trying to do, then had a big roundup of all these kids. Details are sketchy, and I didn’t know anyone involved.

I bring this up to throw into the mix that just because it is police work, and just because it is supposedly to rid the town of unlawful activity, is that sufficient justification?

Alan

 

[Mom_of_one]

I believe the answer is no. This is called moral reservation. If they don’t have a need to know and if they would harm or kill someone because they knew info, then they should not be told the truth.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Where are all the posters that had a fit when a boss asked them to tell an unknown caller he was not in when in fact he was in, but was very busy and did not want interruptions?

Where are you with the documentation that lying in any form is intrinsically evil? Is it different when it is police work, and when the “ends” are considered honorable as opposed to the boss just being selfish? If you just haven’t gotten into this thread because you are weary I understand, but if it’s because you’re chicken, then come on in!

Let’s get this conversation kicked up a notch! I want to see some serious hair-splitting going on! Rah, rah, rah!

Or as my son says, “rabble, rabble, rabble.”

Alan

 

[Shralp]

Yeah, in case D it’s pretty easy to make the case that it’s ok to say something that isn’t true because those people presumably want to harm you.

The tough ones for me are in the case of the innocent bystander and those who know and like you. They would presumably not want to do you harm, but telling the truth would blow your cover.

Is it ok to give false information in those cases? Do we have authoritative sources?

 

[Mom_of_one]

Shralp:

The tough ones for me are in the case of the innocent bystander and those who know and like you. They would presumably not want to do you harm, but telling the truth would blow your cover.

Is it ok to give false information in those cases? Do we have authoritative sources?

Those who know and like you may be in danger if they know what you are doing.

 

[Arwen037]

In all these cases it sounds like he’s just protecting himself. If his mother might spread it around (even though she wouldn’t mean any harm by it) she could still get him killed. Same with case B. Case C is pretty much the same as case D. And I see this situation as a little differant than selling drugs to kids, because they might not have done it if it hadn’t been offered.

 

[tunemiester]

the answer to your question is **no !!! **
and here’s why. I’ve been a cop for tewnty-five years and the two most important rules for undercover are 1. you don’t ever know who your talking to - even if a relative and 2. from WWII fame- loose lips sink ships.
Say you tell a cousin of your new assignment and while having a few beers with his pals he tells them of your job. You don’t know who else heard his conversation, and you don’t know who they maybe wrapped up with. YOU COULD BE DEAD TOMORROW ! The idea is to gain the confidence of another party to get the information you need for trial/arrest. At the trial the defense attorney will point out your lying but the judge usually tells the jury a certain amount of deception is allowed in an investigation for fact finding purposes on the part of the police. You also want to protect your family- the bad guys have no qualms about going after your family.
Finally look at this - during WWII Pope Pius XII told all the religious to help the jewish population any way it could. Many dressed jew as religious. When the nazis’ came knocking and asked if they knew of any jews they told them no-“just our own order here”. Are they all guilty of sin ???

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m still flabbergasted by the conspicuous absence of “absolutists” against lying there are on this thread.

All of a sudden when it comes to legitimate law enforcement, the relativists are the only ones with anything to say.

Hmmm. Funny thing is the stuff being said on this thread is exactly the stuff that got flamed for being relativistic, and for being of an ends-justify-the-means mindset.

Alan

 

[Mom_of_one]

AlanFromWichita:

I’m still flabbergasted by the conspicuous absence of “absolutists” against lying there are on this thread.

All of a sudden when it comes to legitimate law enforcement, the relativists are the only ones with anything to say.

Hmmm. Funny thing is the stuff being said on this thread is exactly the stuff that got flamed for being relativistic, and for being of an ends-justify-the-means mindset.

Alan

Um, Alan, are you saying that I am a relativist? Or am I missing the point?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Momofone:

Um, Alan, are you saying that I am a relativist? Or am I missing the point?

My point is that in a slightly different scenario, there were many posters trumpeting that any lie is evil because of whatever, whatever, got documentation and everything. They naturally bristled against the “moral relativism” that takes us down the slippery slope (my term not theirs) and any lie will do to get the ball rolling.

Here in this thread, cooler heads seem to prevail. There are times when it is simply not a good idea to tell the truth, and even to intentionally misinform. If that makes you a relativist, then I say join the club. If you are among those who think “relativism” is automatically bad, then consider that you are saying lying=evil is not an absolute formula. That is a relativistic, and responsible way to look at it, IMO.

What I’m really implying is the “absoluteness” of “absolutists” just might depend on the situation. Therefore, I charge the self-proclaimed absolutists either avioded posting on this thread or have changed their tune all of a sudden. I don’t keep good track of who said what so I make no charges against any who posted in this thread.

Alan

 

[Mom_of_one]

AlanFromWichita:

My point is that in a slightly different scenario, there were many posters trumpeting that any lie is evil because of whatever, whatever, got documentation and everything. They naturally bristled against the “moral relativism” that takes us down the slippery slope (my term not theirs) and any lie will do to get the ball rolling.

Here in this thread, cooler heads seem to prevail. There are times when it is simply not a good idea to tell the truth, and even to intentionally misinform. If that makes you a relativist, then I say join the club. If you are among those who think “relativism” is automatically bad, then consider that you are saying lying=evil is not an absolute formula. That is a relativistic, and responsible way to look at it, IMO.

What I’m really implying is the “absoluteness” of “absolutists” just might depend on the situation. Therefore, I charge the self-proclaimed absolutists either avioded posting on this thread or have changed their tune all of a sudden. I don’t keep good track of who said what so I make no charges against any who posted in this thread.

Alan

*That’s what I was hoping you meant!!! You are right. I remember that other thread. *

 

[Liberian]

AlanFromWichita:

I’m still flabbergasted by the conspicuous absence of “absolutists” against lying there are on this thread.

All of a sudden when it comes to legitimate law enforcement, the relativists are the only ones with anything to say.

Hmmm. Funny thing is the stuff being said on this thread is exactly the stuff that got flamed for being relativistic, and for being of an ends-justify-the-means mindset.

Alan

Alan,

Relativist? Me? (I’m joking–I read your answer to the other poster. And I don’t remember the other thread.)

I don’t think I am being a relativist; I am simply engaging in what my wife calls splitting hairs.

• Liberian

 

[masterjedi747]

AlanFromWichita:

Many on this forum have argued vehemently that lying in any form is intrinsically evil.

Umm, well…because it is.
Lying is intrinsically evil. Mental Reservation is not.​

2 Basic Definitions of Lying:

1. The expression by which we convey to another something contrary to what we think in order to deliberately deceive them.
2. The contradiction between our outward expression and our interior conviction.

3 Conditions for a lie to take place: (Need all 3)

1. Must be an expression by word or deed that communicates an idea to another.
2. It must convey to another something that we do not believe to be true.
3. Intending to deceive them. (Generally a bad thing.)

4 Exceptions to Lying:

1. Hyperbole: The use of exaggerated statements, which are easily understood as such.
2. Irony: Speech used to express humor, with the intended (and understood) implication of meaning the exact opposite of the literal sense of the words used.
3. Jokes: When the nature is obvious so that a reasonable person would recognize the jest.
4. Fiction: Something that is not true or real. (Presenting fiction as fiction is not sinful.)

Mental Reservation:

1. To tell the truth in such a way as to mislead someone and/or to be vague.

5 Conditions for Valid Mental Reservation:

1. The Intention is good.
2. Cannot be used with a person in rightful authority.
3. Cannot be done under oath.
4. Truth of the matter cannot be directly contradicted.
5. There is a sufficient reason for it.
   ==============================================
   So let’s examine the situation more closely:

Shralp:

A.) His mom calls and asks if he got the job as an undercover cop. Knowing that it’s likely that his mother will tell other people, which could endanger him if word gets back to the Mafioso, Krupke tells her that he did NOT get the job. Is that a sin?

Yes. Because he doesn’t need to tell her anything anyway. He could have just said “I can’t tell you that right now.” I mean, seriously, why is his MOM even calling him to find out in the first place? (That might make me slightly suspicious, you know? ) Just don’t say anything at all in the first place, or ignore her question completely. Don’t tell her. But you don’t have to lie.

Shralp:

B.) On his way to the job, while he is still in police uniform, a friend asks him what he’s doing that day. Krupke says, “I’ve been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use.” Is that a sin?

Yes. Again, that’s a complete falsehood. He’s not even “undercover” yet. Say something else. Almost anything else. Tell him that it’s just “business as usual”. Tell him that you can’t tell him. Or just tell him the complete and utter truth, wait for him to say “Are you serious?”, then start laughing and say “Did you actually believe me?” while he stands there in complete shock before he also starts laughing at your obvious “joke”. (No, I’m just kidding…don’t do that. Seriously. Don’t. Too dangerous.) But still, the main point is that you don’t have to lie, so don’t.

Shralp:

C.) Once he’s on the job and undercover, someone asks him his name. Krupke doesn’t know the person, but doesn’t think he’s Mafia, but he says “Biff.” Is that a sin?

No. He’s under an assumed name, so for now that is his name. Is “Shralp” your real name? Same thing. You temporarily adopt an alternate name to identify yourself with, for good reason.

Shralp:

D.) The Mafia types come into Starbucks. One of them thinks he recognizes Krupke and asks him directly if he’s a cop. Krupke says “no.” Is that a sin?

Maybe. I don’t know for sure. He is under an assumed identity, and you really have no way to know what the man intends to mean by the question, so that would be valid grounds for mental reservation. BUT he could still say something else to throw them off the track, instead of directly contradicting the truth of the matter. The fact that it was a direct question makes is what makes it hard. It’s really going to depend more upon the specifics of the situation. Is Krupke officially “on duty” for this assignment? Exactly how did the Mafia type phrase the question? We’re going to have to look for loopholes here, otherwise it would be wrong.

 

[pnewton]

Looks like Alan got his wish. I would hate to think we left all of law enforcement and the military to non-Christians because they were able to do the hard job Christians would not.

I am curious if these issues have ever been addressed authoritatively. They are not specifically addressed in the CCC that I am aware of. Is there a group like there is for bioethics that addresses issues like this for the Church or is it a priest by priest thing.

 

[masterjedi747]

pnewton:

Looks like Alan got his wish.

Oh. You mean this one? “Let’s get this conversation kicked up a notch! I want to see some serious hair-splitting going on!” I know. It’s just horrible, isn’t it?

pnewton:

I would hate to think we left all of law enforcement and the military to non-Christians because they were able to do the hard job Christians would not.

Christians should be able to do it.
Tell the truth, use valid mental reservation, or keep your mouth sealed shut. Just don’t lie.

pnewton:

I am curious if these issues have ever been addressed authoritatively. They are not specifically addressed in the CCC that I am aware of.

The issues of lying and mental reservation are. The entire purpose of speech is to communicate known truth. Lying, therefore, is intrinsically evil. Mental reservation is just one of those cool little loopholes that knowledgeable Catholics can take advantage of.

pnewton:

Is there a group like there is for bioethics that addresses issues like this for the Church

The above lists/definitions I gave you on lying and mental reservation all came directly from my (extremely awesome) moral theology teacher at school…and he had originally compiled them all from the CCC and other official sources of Catholic doctrine/teachings. I honestly don’t know how the Church figured it all out, but I’m very glad that they did.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thank you all for kicking it up a notch!

So far as I hear it we have between these three options, from which we can choose one or more, or maybe come up with alternates:

1. call me a relativist if I’m going to allow especially case D, the most important one for safety, to be used as excuse to intentionaly deceive, i.e. lie.
2. Call it “splitting hairs” instead of relativism. If I ever see the code word “splitting hairs” I’ll know of this possible context.
3. Call it moral reservation instead of lying. Same behavior, different name.

Now I say all three methods are another form of relativism, in that the absolute command “you shall not lie” does not stand on its own as an absolute statement without volumes of ifs, and, or buts.

(Quick snipe: same way with “thou shalt not kill.” )

Looks to me like I win! :dancing: At least I do in my mind. All these things are substitute ways of realizing “relativistic” enforcement without letting go of the “absolute” label that seems to provide such security to many.

OTOH, if I am just exalting myself again, please somebody humble me! If you succeed, I will indicate so by the phrase, “I needed that.”

pnewton:

Looks like Alan got his wish. I would hate to think we left all of law enforcement and the military to non-Christians because they were able to do the hard job Christians would not.

This is an excellent point. I think when one acts in concert with law enforcement, they are answering to an authority outside themselves. If Jesus were the judge, or even the defense attorney, nobody would ever be punished. As a concession, we realize that governments are put into place to limit people’s individual freedom.

I have been on a jury involving drive by gang shootings and once on a huge civil case involving a police officer killed, and I didn’t have any problem following the law, and the instructions, regardless of my thoughts on the law.

The lawyers do ask about personal opinions on the law during jury selection, and I was up front and honest. That’s why I got kicked off two juries and retained on three after questioning. When they ask for personal opinions, it isn’t what they want to hear!

More on that later, but I have to watch TV to see if my kids are on the news again about the murder/suicide next door last night. At 5:00 (Central) news, my son was pictured, but they didn’t play our interviews in favor of family members.

I am curious if these issues have ever been addressed authoritatively. They are not specifically addressed in the CCC that I am aware of. Is there a group like there is for bioethics that addresses issues like this for the Church or is it a priest by priest thing.

I think the CCC tries to give good guidelines for it.

Alan

 

[masterjedi747]

AlanFromWichita:

Thank you all for kicking it up a notch!

You’re very welcome!

AlanFromWichita:

Call me a relativist if I’m going to allow especially case D, the most important one for safety, to be used as excuse to intentionaly deceive, i.e. lie.

Case D certainly is the most important, but we don’t have enough information from the context given in that situation to know either way for sure.

AlanFromWichita:

Call it “splitting hairs” instead of relativism. If I ever see the code word “splitting hairs” I’ll know of this possible context.

Nah…that’s not fun enough.

AlanFromWichita:

Call it moral reservation instead of lying. Same behavior, different name.

NO. They’re not the same. Lying directly contradicts the truth. Mental reservation presents the truth in a vague/disguised manner, and can only be done for sufficient reason.

See more detail in the lists I posted above.​

(Quick snipe: same way with “thou shalt not kill.”)

No, because the correct translation is: “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder, like lying, is intrinsically evil. Killing is not. Murder is an immoral form of killing, not the other way around.

AlanFromWichita:

If Jesus were the judge, or even the defense attorney, nobody would ever be punished.

Riiight… Nobody. Ever. Talk about absolutes. And tell that to the poor souls in hell.

AlanFromWichita:

As a concession, we realize that governments are put into place to limit people’s individual freedom.

Governments are supposed to be put in place to ensure individual freedom. Usually they do.

AlanFromWichita:

More on that later, but I have to watch TV to see if my kids are on the news again about the murder/suicide next door last night.

Explain?!!?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

masterjedi747:

Case D certainly is the most important, but we don’t have enough information from the context given in that situation to know either way for sure.

granted.

Nah…that’s not fun enough.

I’m open to suggestion.

NO. They’re not the same. Lying directly contradicts the truth. Mental reservation presents the truth in a vague/disguised manner, and can only be done for sufficient reason.

See more detail in the lists I posted above.​

Thank you for the summary. I did reread your explanations above.

No, because the correct translation is: “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder, like lying, is intrinsically evil. Killing is not. Murder is an immoral form of killing, not the other way around.

OK, and I challenge you to come up with a definition (new thread if necessary) which can accurately distinguish the two from externally observed behavior plus interview questions with the person who is trying to be honest with his/her feelings.

In spirit, I agree with what you say. In trying to define it with words, I think we still run into a problem. For example, the CCC has a lot to say on this, for example if it was in self-defense then you can kill and still be pro-life, and you can’t have had killing them as a goal or knowingly excessive force but one doesn’t have to prove they used the minimum possible force, due to reasons such as they are scared and react quickly. Try to spell that out for a confessor to know how to handle these, and you can hardly simply use the word “murder” and expect its commonly used context to be sufficiently understood.

For example, “murder” has a certain legal context, such as what happened next door last night. The man who did the shooting was drunk, and was defending against a friend who was also drunk but talking racist and/or cursing God, and accidentally killed him by shooting him in the face between the eyes. The man who was shooting realized what he had done, was struck with grief, and turned the gun on his own eye. Two men are dead. The law is tentatively calling it a murder/suicide. Now, does that mean in the eyes of God there was one murder, two, or none? Does the legal definition even factor into the spiritual one?

My claim is that a term which has many commonly used contexts, cannot be considered absolute if it takes volumes to explain exactly what the term mean – that is, unless taken into the context of the entire volume.

My real question is, is there any way of adequately explaining it so that we have an objective way to decide in any given situation, provided we could read everybody’s heart and mind? If we can’t do that, then I hold the commandment even with its explanatory remarks is still relative from a behavioral standpoint.

Again, spiritually, I think “murder” and “kill” is an adequate explanation, and maybe that’s what you mean by absolute. That is absolute; trying to apply it in any given case is where it becomes relative.

At this point I’m not conceding, but nor am I denying your point. Maybe we can both win; if I clarify my goal as to help curb reckless use of the “absolutist good relativist bad” concept, which I concede has not been conspicuously abused in this thread. If we can get this to work together, maybe we can even go back and forgive communications failures retroactively in other threads.

Riiight… Nobody. Ever. Talk about absolutes. And tell that to the poor souls in hell.

Oops, gotta go take my wife to adoration. get back later.

Alan