Lying and undercover work

[AlanFromWichita]

masterjedi747:

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

I’m talking about within the legal system, with worldly governments. I don’t believe Jesus would desire the worldly government to have to punish anybody in any particular case.

Within the legal system, if Jesus were the defense attorney, I don’t think any jury that was in the same room as Him could vote for conviction.

If Jesus were the judge in a worldly arsenal, I believe He would not vote to use worldly sanctions against anybody. He saved the prostitute from rightful punishment. He repaired the severed ear that Peter, lacking in faith and understanding, cut off. As it said in today’s second reading, He died not for the good but for the sinners.

Sure He gave the Church authority to hold people bound, but is this as a concession to the fact that no human being on earth is perfect, so sometimes we have to resort to less than perfect-faith solutions to keep order in society?

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

Some governments are. Ostensibly the U.S. Constitution ensures certain individual freedom, but only by limiting the power of the government. The only real tool the government has of ensuring compliance is pain of punishment; the government has the right to deny a citizen life, liberty, or property under due process and established procedures.

Explain?!!?

Last night some drunks were arguing about either religion, racism, or both. One shot the other, then realized what he had done and killed himself. This was next door to us; the bedroom window of the apartment where the shootings took place is about 20 feet from some of my children’s bedroom window.

Tonight on the 5:00 news on channel 3, my oldest son was walking through the background, but at 5:30 on channel 10, my #2 son Chris was interviewed at length – with his name right on the screen – even though he didn’t have much to say. I was also in it in the background (said my wife and kids but I didn’t see it) and my son and his girlfriend were also pictured giving statements to police.

Channel 3 interviewed my wife, son, and me this morning on our front porch, and the Wichita Eagle has been calling to talk to Chris more after last night. Chris loves it; he’s the biggest ham in our family. He was delighted that he was shown on TV news as long as he was even with nothing substantive to say.

It’s been quite an adventure. We only moved here last month to stay while our house is being repaired after burning down on Good Friday. I can’t wait until the kids have to write “what I did this summer” essays! We have six children, ages 8-18, and they are really taking it well. The little ones were thrilled to see their big brother on TV.

We’ll see if we get the same news segments tonight. At 10:00 is channel 3 news and 10:30 channel 10 news.

Alan

 

[masterjedi747]

AlanFromWichita:

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.
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?

Here’s what I have:
Murder: Intentionally taking an innocent human life.
Killing: Taking the life of a person who is mortally endangering an innocent human life.
4 Conditions for Self Defense to be Valid

1. Attack must be immediate or imminent.
2. Attack must be unjust.
3. You cannot exceed Necessary Force.
4. Can only kill when defending a human life. (Includes your own)
   I have more specifics on the items of suicide, euthenasia, and abortion, but not sure if they’re relevant.

AlanFromWichita:

At this point I’m not conceding, but nor am I denying your point. Maybe we can both win; If we can get this to work together, maybe we can even go back and forgive communications failures retroactively in other threads.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t believe Jesus would desire the worldly government to have to punish anybody in any particular case. Within the legal system, if Jesus were the defense attorney, I don’t think any jury that was in the same room as Him could vote for conviction.

Ehhh…I would have to disagree. To not punish anyboby at all would be an injustice to society, and God can’t do that. If Jesus were present at a trial for someone, I think He would quite easily come up with some brilliant way of clearly proving the person either innocent or guilty. Or He would just look into their eyes, and they would willingly confess right then and there if they were guilty. And if they really were guilty, He would do everything in His (I assume earthly) power to ensure that the convicted person were given an extremely just, while simultaneously merciful, punishment. Like Daniel at the trial of Susanna. At least that’s what I think.

AlanFromWichita:

He saved the prostitute from rightful punishment.

I think the point is that it wasn’t just punishment. Under the Mosaic Law, certainly, but Christ came to complete the Mosaic Law and improve it, making it stricter and more just. The death sentence for a prostitute hardly seems a just punishment under Christ’s Law, and He is simply showing that to us Himself by setting the example.

AlanFromWichita:

He repaired the severed ear that Peter, lacking in faith and understanding, cut off.

I hardly see how that’s the same thing, though. It’s mercy, but towards someone who was attacked by His own apostle against His will. Jesus didn’t want him to do that, so he used the opportunity to simultaneously correct the situation, potentially convert another believer, and give us all an example of demonstrating mercy even towards those who might not deserve it.

AlanFromWichita:

It’s been quite an adventure. We only moved here last month to stay while our house is being repaired after burning down on Good Friday. I can’t wait until the kids have to write “what I did this summer” essays! We have six children, ages 8-18, and they are really taking it well. The little ones were thrilled to see their big brother on TV.

What I Did This Summer essays!!! But seriously, wow. So were these people like neighbors that you actually knew personally, or just neighbors? That’s still really sad.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

masterjedi747:

Here’s what I have:
Murder: Intentionally taking an innocent human life.
Killing: Taking the life of a person who is mortally endangering an innocent human life.
4 Conditions for Self Defense to be Valid

1. Attack must be immediate or imminent.
2. Attack must be unjust.
3. You cannot exceed Necessary Force.
4. Can only kill when defending a human life. (Includes your own)
   I have more specifics on the items of suicide, euthenasia, and abortion, but not sure if they’re relevant.
   Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

OK, so here’s my first proposal.

My major beef here is to defend the honor of people who are claimed by others as being sinful due to being “relativistic.”

Each of your four conditions above are excellent, and I go along with them. I will give you that in a particular situation, the truth of these is an absolute truth, and is known by God.

I challenge you that it is never possible for humans to infallibly determine that absolute truth in any given situation for each of the four factors, based on any finite set of written criteria to observe or weigh. At some point there is a judgment call, which may vary in human certainty.

In other words, as long as you allow for some amount of explanation, then I give you it is possible to determine criteria that make sense spiritually, and which at least God can discern. To that degree, I suppose you have earned through your consistency in this thread my respect for keeping to those absolute criteria.

Ehhh…I would have to disagree…

That’s OK if you disagree. I just can’t see Jesus saying, “he’s guilty, guards, take him away!”

Who is going to get the honor of executing the punishment? Would Jesus lock his cell door and leave him there for years?

Sorry I’m not past all that yet.

I think the point is that it wasn’t just punishment. Under the Mosaic Law, certainly, but Christ came to complete the Mosaic Law and improve it, making it stricter and more just. The death sentence for a prostitute hardly seems a just punishment under Christ’s Law, and He is simply showing that to us Himself by setting the example.

He came to complete the law, in part by proving that a sin does not have to go punished. It can go unaccused entirely. Christ had a perfect chance to show us that there must be payback for sin, and blew it. He could have at least slapped her with a wet noodle. :whacky:

I hardly see how that’s the same thing, though. It’s mercy, but towards someone who was attacked by His own apostle against His will. Jesus didn’t want him to do that, so he used the opportunity to simultaneously correct the situation, potentially convert another believer, and give us all an example of demonstrating mercy even towards those who might not deserve it.

I agree with you, and raise you this:

The crowd came to do a terrible thing. It was so terrible that Jesus sweated blood and asked His father to stop it. I mean talk about pain in the “where’s my epidural” thread, this had to be bad.

In perfect obedience to His father, he simply allowed those evil men to do their dirty work without so much as allowing one to have and owee on his ear.

My other claim so far is that Jesus demonstrated rather clearly that when He was confronted directly with evil, he never lifted a finger to intentionally cause pain to others. If so, then I’d happy to hear what I’m missing. This is my justification for saying that the Church has no obligation (beyond penance) to inflict punishment on a sinner. Let the government rule by inflicting pain. Let the Church rule by calling her sheep using the sweet voice of love and forgiveness they learn from the Good Shepherd.

That said, I thought the apostles did all sorts of narly stuff like calling down fire to kill people?

What I Did This Summer essays!!! But seriously, wow. So were these people like neighbors that you actually knew personally, or just neighbors? That’s still really sad.

Didn’t know well. Julie and some kids have seen them and talked to them. We just moved here a few weeks ago.

Hey, thanks for a great discussion. I don’t know if we changed anything, but I still wish to defend anybody who is tagged a “relativist” who isn’t claiming to be obstinate. We’re not there yet, but I think we’re closer, and if we can bridge the respect gap, then the name-calling gap, then we have made a step toward unity, even if not intellectual or theological unity – yet.

Let’s all become united in love and without judgment of each other. Learn the rules to advise and to behave, but don’t expect everybody to be at the same level because they aren’t and getting upset about it isn’t going to make it so. Likewise, without healthy questioning (both sincere and challengers) there are no apologetics, as some have mentioned, so CA goes away.

With no enemies, we may gain strength at first but through human weakness become frail. No conflict, no testing, no purification and strengthening.

In case you want to hear more about the shooting last night, I started this thread on it.

Soap box off. Over or out, as you prefer.

Alan

 

[tuopaolo]

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?

It’s never under any circumstances ethical to lie. The Catechism says lying is to be condemned “by its very nature” and that it is “intrinsically disordered” and that thus not OK under any circumstances and that the “end do not justify the means” – this is all specifically with reference to lying.

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?

If his mom asks, “Did you get the job as an undercover cop?”, he can answer, “No” which in this context means, “No, not as far as you are concerned” or “No, not as far as you need to be concerned or worried about.” Thus it wouldn’t be lying when one has that intention in mind – an intention which involves not any desire to lead his mom into error – whether as a means or as an end – but only a desire to veil truth that she need not be concerned with. It’s the equivalent of not answering her question except that if you utter, “I choose not to answer your question,” she’ll know what the answer is. So answering “No” in this context has an ambiguous meaning, a meaning that can be properly inferred from the context as a distinctly possible meaning.

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?

No as long as there is no intention of lying but like in A merely an intention of saying something that in context simply means, “I choose not to answer your question.” You are really meaning by those words, “I’ve been assigned to patrol… and this is my way of choosing not to answer your question” as opposed to “I’ve been assigned to patrol… and this is the truth” In the latter case, you would be lying and it would be a sin. In the former case, you would just be avoiding the question without making it apparent to the asker that you are avoiding it.

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 again as long as there is no intention of lying. If he means, “Biff and this is really my name” then it would be lying and a sin. If he means, “Biff and this is the name of my undercover character” then it wouldn’t be lying and would not be a sin – it would be the same if someone were assuming the role of a character in a film or play and within that film or play was asked, “What is your name?” and answers not with his actual name but with the actual name of his character within the film or play – that would certainly not be lying and neither would answering similiarly in an undercover character context be lying.

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?

It would not be lying for all the reasons above and thus not be a sin (unless one had the intention of lying). “No” in that case can mean with reference to his undercover character (just as an actress in a play or film may answer “No” to the question, “Are you an actress?” within the context of a film or play she is working in).

 

[pnewton]

masterjedi747:

Tell the truth, use valid mental reservation, or keep your mouth sealed shut. Just don’t lie.

No undercover cop would be able to stay alive with this restirction. I ask any cop here if you see this differently. Sending people on suicidal assignments would not encourage Christians to become cops.

Bad guy: You some kind of cop?

Catholic cop: I am going to have to decline to answer that question. I have valid mental reservations. So where did you buy that crack?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tuopaolo:

Thus it wouldn’t be lying when one has that intention in mind – an intention which involves not any desire to lead his mom into error – whether as a means or as an end – but only a desire to veil truth that she need not be concerned with.

The most important thing I notice here, is that there is no desire to lead her into error.

As far as how you can remain “absolute” by not technically lying, I have to hand you the crown. Please accept this as a compliment in your verbal acquittal, but this crown was one I was planning to give Bill Clinton! As an ostensible conservative Republican, it took a long time before I could figure out how he might actually not have lied in his own heart – or at least slick tongue. Finally I did, and it’s a lot like your ideas here. What does “is” mean in context really can be the difference between truth and lying.

In spirit, I don’t have a problem with any of the examples you gave. When one makes the comments one knows specifically that they will lead to misinterpretation, and in fact were designed that way, then I submit we might be playing word games. If there is a hidden context, likely not to have been considered by the receiver of the message, and I say it quacks like a duck.

Wouldn’t it be easier to to admit that you’re really on my side, where we can just admit it is not always wrong to deceive and make it a lot simpler? Just tell the guy “no I’m not a cop” and accept that we have answered in a way to throw the guy off the trail and be done with it. No foul, no guilt. No linguistic acrobats.

Perhaps “deceive” is a crude word used by less-literate people who don’t know how to properly construct the needed “truths” such that they have different meanings in parallel universes.

I don’t know. I still think you are one of us at heart. Come on into our ward of the hospital with the rest of us sociopaths (I mean, relativists) and join our club. The parties are great! Now, am I inviting you toward unity, or toward temptation to sin? I say it depends on how I frame the question in my mind.

Thanks again, all, for this great thread and your excellent, thoughtful, and non-hostile responses. If I come off as uncharitable here then please forgive me. I wasn’t trying to, I just can’t seem to help myself.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pnewton:

Catholic cop: I am going to have to decline to answer that question. I have valid mental reservations. So where did you buy that crack?

Unfortunately the person targeted might also be unable to lie, “of course I never bought or carried any crack.” :getholy:

(Thinking: remember I need to get some sealer to patch the walk in front of my brother’s house. I hope when I get my own house it doesn’t have a problem with settling concrete.)

Alan

 

[masterjedi747]

AlanFromWichita:

I challenge you that it is never possible for humans to infallibly determine that absolute truth in any given situation for each of the four factors, based on any finite set of written criteria to observe or weigh. At some point there is a judgment call, which may vary in human certainty.

In a way, you’re absolutely right.
We can never know the subjective guilt of the person who made the sinful decison. Maybe they sinned, and maybe they didn’t. It depends on what their intentions were, how well-educated they were in issues of morality, and all sorts of other (potentially unknowable) things like that.
But we can look at the situation in order to point out the objectively sinful action. And since we were told that Officer John Krupke was a Catholic, I assumed, for intents and purposes of the examples given, that he was also a faithful and well-educated Catholic in such matters.

AlanFromWichita:

In perfect obedience to His father, he simply allowed those evil men to do their dirty work without so much as allowing one to have and owee on his ear.

Yes, but still…He’s using His Passion to show us that suffering is not inherently evil, and to fulfill God’s promise of a Redeemer by taking on the full weight of sin for the world from all of eternity. Certainly an excellent example of why we don’t have to resist unjust punishment against us, and how we can be merciful towards our enemies even while they drag us away, but I still don’t think that’s the same as at a trial. And, mind you, I’m not just talking about trials involving potential capital punishment, or anything like that. In those cases, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if He did do everything possible to be merciful towards the guilty person and give them a lighter punishment, but still don’t think they’d be able to get off completely scott-free either. Even at just a regular trial for someone who clearly broke the just law intentionally, I think they would still get some form of a punishment, however small, to make sure that they do learn an important lesson to not do it again. And I don’t mean to say that He would be by any means happy about it. Just that He would ensure that justice and mercy are both carried out to their proper extent. There’s that part of his parable: “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” (Luke 12:58-59) I don’t know, but I imagine it would play out something very similar to this trial story, starting with about Verse 42.

tuopaolo:

If his mom asks, “Did you get the job as an undercover cop?”, he can answer, “No” which in this context means, “No, not as far as you are concerned” or “No, not as far as you need to be concerned or worried about.” Thus it wouldn’t be lying when one has that intention in mind – an intention which involves not any desire to lead his mom into error – whether as a means or as an end – but only a desire to veil truth that she need not be concerned with. It’s the equivalent of not answering her question except that if you utter, “I choose not to answer your question,” she’ll know what the answer is. So answering “No” in this context has an ambiguous meaning, a meaning that can be properly inferred from the context as a distinctly possible meaning.

Still, I don’t think that works. Let’s look at the requirements one more time:
1) The Intention is good. Yes, to protect her and himself from unnecessary danger.
2) Cannot be used with a person in rightful authority. No, because she has no right to have to know anyway.
3) Cannot be done under oath. Nope.
Those three are easy. The next two are much harder. I’ll do them in this order:
5) There is a sufficient reason for it. This is the one requrement that I realy don’t think we meet in this situation. What does it matter if she knows he’s an undercover cop? She doesn’t know what his assignment is…and if she asks, then he honestly answer “I can’t tell you” without giving anything away. He obviously felt comfortable enough with telling her that he was eligible for this position as an undercover cop in the first place. And if she lives out of state or anything, who in blue blazes is she going to tell? I really don’t think we’re anywhere near meeting this requirement.

 

[masterjedi747]

**4) Truth of the matter cannot be directly contradicted.** This one ties in with requirement #5. Now, if his mother lived in town, and was notorious for her gossiping, had discovered that he was eligible to become an undercover cop without him teling her, and he knew that he could neither trust her to keep this information nor to not keep pressing others for answers due to her inordinate curiosity....then not only would this be able to change the situation in #5, but also the situation that was described here would also be acceptable. If he had answered "No" for those reasons, and had honestly *intended* to mean his answer under that specific context (and she just takes it the wrong way, which is good), then you would right. And even in this case, if he had said "No, I did not get the job as an undercover cop", then we would still have a problem, because that would be a direct contradiction of the truth. But I don't think that's what we're dealing with here. We're not told that he should consider his mother as a danger, and thus he has no reason to withhold this relatively useless piece of information from her direct question.

tuopaolo:

No as long as there is no intention of lying but like in A merely an intention of saying something that in context simply means, “I choose not to answer your question.” You are really meaning by those words, “I’ve been assigned to patrol… and this is my way of choosing not to answer your question” as opposed to “I’ve been assigned to patrol… and this is the truth” In the latter case, you would be lying and it would be a sin. In the former case, you would just be avoiding the question without making it apparent to the asker that you are avoiding it.

I really don’t think this one can be taken like that. Does he have sufficient reason for mental reservation in this case? Absolutely. But it’s not just the intention that is important, but also what you say. “I’ve been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use.” How can that possibly be interpreted any other way? It’s clearly a lie, and he should just say something else…evil grin unless of course he really had been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use…it just wasn’t assigned for today. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/13.gif If that’s true, then his response was perfectly acceptable.

tuopaolo:

No again as long as there is no intention of lying.

Need to clarify: You can’t just lie and say “I had no inention of lying”…sorry, but it doesn’t work like that. You can tell the truth from a different point of view, but you have to mean it that way when you say it, and you have to have good reason to do so.

tuopaolo:

It would not be lying for all the reasons above and thus not be a sin (unless one had the intention of lying). “No” in that case can mean with reference to his undercover character (just as an actress in a play or film may answer “No” to the question, “Are you an actress?” within the context of a film or play she is working in).

I think you’re right here. If his assumed character is not a cop, and we’ve clearly met all the other conditions (which I’m sure we have) for valid mental reservation, and as long as that’s how he meant it, then we’re good.

pnewton:

No undercover cop would be able to stay alive with this restirction. I ask any cop here if you see this differently.

That doesn’t change the objective morailty of it, though. Sorry.

pnewton:

Bad guy: You some kind of cop?
Catholic cop: I am going to have to decline to answer that question. I have valid mental reservations. So where did you buy that crack?

That’s not a good example of what mental reservation is! Mental reservation doesn’t mean that you don’t answer their question. It means that you answer it from a different “point of view”. Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode IV when he’s talking to Luke Skywalker about the death of his father…that’s mental reservation. The truth given in disguise, for good reason.

 

[pnewton]

masterjedi747:

That doesn’t change the objective morailty of it, though. Sorry.

Your posts also fo not change the objective morailty. So what? I asked for the opinion of professionals in the field, not more judgemental eye-rolling. Your opinions make some areas of law enforcement and Christianity incompatable, in my opinion. The only opinion I will respect *in this issue (*law enforcement and Christianity would be incompatable) would be those in the field.

I know what the CCC says on lying and would never challenge it, but it does not cover every situation. I am reminded of the "sin"King David committed, according to the moral theology of the day, when he ate bread comsecrated for priest. Yet Jesus used it as an example implying that it was permissable.

When Jesus walked on the Earth, he broke sabbatical law under which he was bound under pain of sin, yet I would be slow to say He committed objective sin.

If all we need on moral theology is the few pages of the catechism to cover all situations with no flexibility, why were you taking a class on the subject? Why are there volumes written on it? Why are there moral theologians?

As far as your analogy on mental reservation, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is that Star Wars, the force is with us, stuff?

 

[masterjedi747]

pnewton:

I asked for the opinion of professionals in the field, not more judgemental eye-rolling. The only opinion I will respect *in this issue (*law enforcement and Christianity would be incompatable) would be those in the field.

Sorry about that. But I still want to make sure that I communicated my main point correctly: Popular opinion does not and cannot change objective morality. It doesn’t matter if every person you interview says the exact same thing…if they’re wrong, then they’re wrong. And I’m NOT saying that they are, because I don’t really know right now. I’m simply speaking in hypothetical terms, so they might very well NOT be applicable to this area of our discussion.

pnewton:

Your opinions make some areas of law enforcement and Christianity incompatable, in my opinion.

Like what? I can certainly think of some methods used in some areas of law enforcement that would be incompatible with Christianity, but that doesn’t mean the whole purpose of that legal branch is wrong, just that they’re doing it in the wrong way. One good example I can think of is torture, which, if I remember correctly, is never a morally acceptable option, even if the survival of the entire human race depends upon it. Good end? Yes. But the end doesn’t justify the use of immoral means. Find other morally valid means of accomplishing the same goal. And if you fail in the end, but you did your best to avert that disaster by all moral means possible, then God’s not going to hold it against you. If the enemy really won, then they won. Maybe they made sure somehow that you couldn’t morally defeat them. But you still can’t morally lower yourself to their level in order to “win”. (And I have no idea how you’re going to take this response, since it is drawing a rather hard line, but let me say that I mean no offense to you personally by it…I’m just telling you what I know.)

pnewton:

I know what the CCC says on lying and would never challenge it, but it does not cover every situation.

Can you give a specific example? Because I would say that it does.

pnewton:

I am reminded of the "sin"King David committed, according to the moral theology of the day, when he ate bread comsecrated for priest. Yet Jesus used it as an example implying that it was permissable.
When Jesus walked on the Earth, he broke sabbatical law under which he was bound under pain of sin, yet I would be slow to say He committed objective sin.

But that’s because Christ came to complete the Old Law. The “moral theology of the day” in the Old Testament was not complete (in some cases was just plain wrong), and it did not cover every situation. Therefore Christ came to complete, fulfill, and correct it. Those examples are simply demonstrating that fact. Once Christ came, everything changed, and the Old Law became irrelevant.

pnewton:

If all we need on moral theology is the few pages of the catechism to cover all situations with no flexibility, why were you taking a class on the subject? Why are there volumes written on it? Why are there moral theologians?

I could just tell you “because the class was required”, but I don’t think that would answer your question. Alright. Why do we have these things? Because the “few” pages of the Catechism do cover all situations…and there’s plenty of “flexibility” built right in. All of the valid “moral loopholes” are there if you know how to understand them within context. The Catechism just doesn’t have the time (or space) to list them all (and they are somewhat unnecessary for most people to understand), so other people take up the job and get their work approved.

pnewton:

As far as your analogy on mental reservation, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, I guess that’s just a bad example on my part. But I’ll explain:​

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
LUKE: How did my father die?

BEN: A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.​

And if you’ve seen Episode III yet, you’ll be able to put it in the proper context.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Phillip, I think you and are have at least one claim in common; that a written code to cover all situations unambiguously would be impossibly complex. It is for this reason that I claim a written document cannot be “absolute” in that it can be followed conscienciously and two reasonable and capable people would come to the same conclusion given the same facts.

When we have scholars and entire fields of study devoted to this, it seems clear that we must be acknowledging the combined volume of written knowledge is not yet complete, or is not yet packaged in a sufficient way that we can quit tweaking it and just start using it.

We can acknowledge the absoluteness of their actual guilt as far as God’s concerned, while conceding that this reality can never be within human consciousness with “serious” absolute certainty. My point is that none of us are truly absolutists; instead of claiming to speak for the absolute we can point toward the Absolute. The Word of scripture and the Church teachings do this, but we have no right or need to judge our brother on morals. When we do, it may hurt them and it certainly hurts us.

In the undercover case, I would not have a problem lying if I took the job willingly that involves it, and believed it was for a good cause such as closing down a ring of young runaways being exploited. I don’t have a bunch of fancy words, and I enjoy listening to the theologians explain it because now and then some sinks in. I just go by whatever I think is right, and eventually try to get in synch with Christ and His Church. Anybody who’s already there, send me a card!

Alan

 

[pnewton]

masterjedi747:

. The “moral theology of the day” in the Old Testament was not complete (in some cases was just plain wrong), and it did not cover every situation…Because the “few” pages of the Catechism do cover all situations…and there’s plenty of “flexibility” built right in. All of the valid “moral loopholes” are there if you know how to understand them within context.
.

Then perhaps we are arguing the same thing. Obviously every cop on the street would be unable to go to a priest at each point of decision. The CCC explains that God has built into each person an inner voice of conscience, which he is obliged to follow (and inform.) While one might not be able to articulate in proper theological terms each exception and to the extent it can be applied, I would trust a faithful Catholic to discharge his duty in line with what God would want.

It is only because some people are willing to tackle these difficult situations that the rest of us are free and safe.

PS - I also agree - torture, bad.

 

[tuopaolo]

masterjedi747:

Still, I don’t think that works. Let’s look at the requirements one more time:
1) The Intention is good. Yes, to protect her and himself from unnecessary danger.
2) Cannot be used with a person in rightful authority. No, because she has no right to have to know anyway.
3) Cannot be done under oath. Nope.
Those three are easy. The next two are much harder. I’ll do them in this order:

Mental reservations can be employed even when under oath. In no. 370 of Fr Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology, it says:

“The broad mental reservation is permissible, sometimes it is even obligatory, provided there is sufficient reason for using it and the question has no right to the truth. – For a grave reason this restriction may be confirmed with an oath. . . An oath may be taken to confirm the broad mental restriction because that which is affirmed is true, though misinterpreted. Consequently, God is not being called upon to witness an untruth. A very good reason is necessary to justify such an oath, e.g., the safeguarding of some great good, or protection from some great harm (Cf. also 186).”

In 186 it says:

“To confirm a broad mental restriction with an oath is a mortal sin if it is done to the prejudice of those who have a right to know the truth; towards others one may do so with a grave reason, without which this would be venially sinful.”

1. There is a sufficient reason for it. This is the one requrement that I realy don’t think we meet in this situation. What does it matter if she knows he’s an undercover cop? She doesn’t know what his assignment is…and if she asks, then he honestly answer “I can’t tell you” without giving anything away. He obviously felt comfortable enough with telling her that he was eligible for this position as an undercover cop in the first place. And if she lives out of state or anything, who in blue blazes is she going to tell? I really don’t think we’re anywhere near meeting this requirement.

The way I understood the question (though at first I was confused about it just like you) was that she only found out that he got a job at Starbucks and was wondering why he got a job there and was wondering if the reason he got a job there was due to undercover work. In any case, I chose to accept the situation as one where there was a sufficient reason even if some imprudent acts on the policeman’s part were what resulted in it.

 

[tuopaolo]

4) Truth of the matter cannot be directly contradicted. This one ties in with requirement #5. Now, if his mother lived in town, and was notorious for her gossiping, had discovered that he was eligible to become an undercover cop without him teling her, and he knew that he could neither trust her to keep this information nor to not keep pressing others for answers due to her inordinate curiosity…then not only would this be able to change the situation in #5, but also the situation that was described here would also be acceptable. If he had answered “No” for those reasons, and had honestly intended to mean his answer under that specific context (and she just takes it the wrong way, which is good), then you would right.

Yes I know I would be right (just kidding)

And even in this case, if he had said “No, I did not get the job as an undercover cop”, then we would still have a problem, because that would be a direct contradiction of the truth.

I would disagree with that because what is meant by those words in that context could be “No, as far as you are concerned, I did not get the job as an undercover cop” or “No, as far as the knowledge I am permitted to communicate to you, I did not get the job as an undercover cop” and she would be able from the circumstances to infer this as a distinctly possible meaning since she would be able to see that had he gotten the job as an undercover cop those words are by convention words that he may use as a way of simply meaning, “I choose not to answer this question and I am going to use these words so that you cannot readily discern that this is what I am doing even though you could infer this as a distinct possibility.” It would be the same if you were planning a surprise party for someone and you are asked by her if you are planning a surprise party – you can answer, “No, we are not” which in this context can either mean that you are not but can ALSO mean, “No, as far as you are concerned, we are not” – and she would be able to infer this as a distinctly possible meaning (whether she actually does or not; she’d be able to do it)

But it’s not just the intention that is important, but also what you say.

What you say is in part determined by the intention. Some words, especially in certain contexts, have an ambigious meaning in the English language. In these cases, when one intends the false meaning, one is lying; and when one does not intend the false meaning, one is not lying. So for example, if someone asks you on the phone, “Is Mrs Smith at home?” and you answer, “No, she is not available,” the words you use are ambiguous and could mean, “No she is not at home” or “She may be at home, but she is not available to speak with you.” In this case if one intends the former meaning, one lies and when one intends the latter meaning, one does not lie. When the words are absolutely unambiguous and one is aware of that fact and the meaning is a false one, then it is not possible to utter them without the intention of lying so the issue of intention does not arise.

“I’ve been assigned to patrol the dog tracks to look for signs of steroid use.” How can that possibly be interpreted any other way?

It can be interpreted as meaning, “I am choosing not to answer the question and I am using these words to hide the fact that I am choosing not to answer the question” if by means of convention that is a possible meaning assigned to sentences such as these in these contexts. Let me illustrate this fact with a clearer example. If two policeman mutually agree that should one ask the other about something that pertains to undercover work that a sentence such as this one would be employed to avoid revealing what pertains to undercover work, then if one or the other employ such a stentence in a such a context, then the other would be able to reasonably infer that such a sentence could have the meaning I laid out above especially since it was already mutually agreed between them that it could. Just as in recreational games involving bluffing (like certain card games), it may be agreed upon as part of the rules of the game that certain verbal or non-verbal acts can have a meaning other than that they would ordinarily have within the context of the game. Even if a mutual agreement is not explicitly made, it is implicitly made both in the case of the card game involving bluffing and also in the case of the policemen.

I think you’re right here. If his assumed character is not a cop, and we’ve clearly met all the other conditions (which I’m sure we have) for valid mental reservation, and as long as that’s how he meant it, then we’re good.

OK.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Be easier just to say it’s OK to deceive at times.

Try it. See if it hurts. Say, “there are times when it is OK to deceive.” There, isn’t that better?

Mental reservation, code words, and the like are just fancy ways of pretending that’s not what we’re doing.

The concept of mental reservation, and of when it’s OK to deceive is fine. What is just word games is when we say one thing with the intent that it be interpreted in a common way while we think mentally there is a way this could not be a lie.

The whole purpose of having a language is to communicate ideas. It the language is used in such a way to communicate an idea that isn’t true, then I can’t see why it matters if we have a “cover story” unless we are in a worldly courtroom charged with perjury or something. In those cases, “I did not have sex with that woman” was actually not lying, because there was one court case Clinton was in where sex was sufficiently defined that the lawyers found a loophole.

Call it what you want, but it is not honest communication. Therefore it is dishonest. You say one thing fulling intending to obfuscate the real answer to a question, especially throwing out a red herring which would not be discoverable in any way, and it’s a lie.

Let’s make this simple.

Somebody asks you a question. You answer in such a way that you not only intentionally avoid answering the question, you offer a lie constructed by a phony context to throw them off the path. It is misleading, pure and simple. You have conveyed a message intended to be received falsely. Therefore, you have told a fib, and on purpose. Call it a rose garden but it will still convey incorrect information on purpose and remain a fib.

Is that sinful? Not necessarily. It must be difficult to claim to be an absolutist about written rules, to have to come up with these gyrations to remain “pure.”

Actually I think, with the possible exception of masterjedi, I am actually the only absolutist around. I’m calling a lie a lie, rather than making up dreamy names for it to allow for relativism in the name of absolutism. When one person intentionally misinforms another, is it an absolutist or a relativist who claims that it is a lie no matter how you slice it?

Yes, that must be the answer. The real relativists are the ones who make up funny names for stuff.

If you don’t like that, then the honest absolutist must concede that it is not OK to lie, and the officer cannot say “no” in scenario D meaning “yes” but intended to sound like “no.” It is simply the ends justifying the means, with lots of scholarly mental masturbation – er, reservation.

If you think it’s OK for the cop to say “no,” then just admit that you don’t believe it is sinful to lie. You can’t have it both ways, unless of course you’re a politician.

Alan

 

[Pug]

Alan

I’ve got to agree with a lot of your frustration. I haven’t been in on the recent lying threads (I fell off a cliff for a month), but in the past I have been on the side that you would probably call the absolutist’s. Some things that are called mental reservation just plain look like raw deceit to me. If you utter something fully intending someone to be mislead, and in fact needing them to be for your purposes, well, that seems like deceit.

If a mobster asks you pointedly if you are a cop, then he really wants to know if you are a cop, and you are exactly what he is afraid of, so if you say no, then you are saving your skin only if the guy buys your deception and is mislead. You aren’t buying your skin by being vague and him accepting your ambiguitiy.

From Ephesians: So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another.

Deceit seems to taint the Christian witness, or something. I don’t know.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pug:

I’ve got to agree with a lot of your frustration. I haven’t been in on the recent lying threads (I fell off a cliff for a month), but in the past I have been on the side that you would probably call the absolutist’s. Some things that are called mental reservation just plain look like raw deceit to me. If you utter something fully intending someone to be mislead, and in fact needing them to be for your purposes, well, that seems like deceit.

It seems like deceit because it is deceit.

One definition for deceit I got from dictionary.reference.com is: deliberate and misleading concealment, false declaration, or artifice

Then I wondered what “artifice” means:

1. 
   *]An artful or crafty expedient; a stratagem. See Synonyms at wile.
   *] Subtle but base deception; trickery.
   *] Cleverness or skill; ingenuity.
   
   This is precisely what we have here, a subtle and tricky way to deceive, but for some reason it is called “mental reservation” and doesn’t count as telling a lie.
   
   I submit that anyone who uses constructs to deceive under some other name, is behaving worse than an absolutist or a relativist, but a schizophrenic view which confuses everything by trying to cherry-pick the “least repulsive” of both worlds. An honest absolutist would have to call it deceit. A relativist would say that deceit is not always wrong. Those two views are perfectly coherent, and the same person can hold them both, thereby transcending either and “absolutist” or “relativist” label and remaining true to one’s value system about lying.
   
   To give it a new name and say it isn’t deceit is in itself a lie to oneself. To further use that self-deceit to construct the self-righteous presumption that we are above those who would deceive, makes us dangerous monsters, judgmental and arbitrary and not to be trusted. We will maintain the position that we are righteous no matter what mental gymnastics are required to support the claim that we are and you’re not. We will hold “you” (whoever “you” is) to the least letter of the law, while escaping its entire spirit with smoke and mirrors ourselves.
   
   I’d have more respect for the point of view, as I think it would be a healthier outlook, that yes, we are lying and what are you going to do about it? Do you wish us to quit doing undercover work? The answer to that is “no” because we are weak and fearful and we wish to have societal safety and we acknowledge that the “good guys” have to play a game themselves in order to catch the game players.
   
   The next question is if deceit is intrinsically immoral. This may sound like a stretch, but I refer to Paul’s writing that for him, everything is lawful but not all is useful. Jesus himself did not use deceit, but he did tell parables that seemed to use worldly shrewdness as if it were a good thing.
   
   The reason I can excuse lying in undercover work is not that it isn’t lying, or isn’t deceitful, or that I have some moral right that Bill Clinton and any number of liberal judges might be needed to “find” in the rules. I can excuse it because it is expedient, and we are talking about the behavior of government officials trying to do their jobs, not somebody claiming to be teaching God’s Honest Truth. This is being shrewd.
   

   If a mobster asks you pointedly if you are a cop, then he really wants to know if you are a cop, and you are exactly what he is afraid of, so if you say no, then you are saving your skin only if the guy buys your deception and is mislead. You aren’t buying your skin by being vague and him accepting your ambiguitiy.

   Exactly. When you hide the truth behind deception, you are simply a stage magician, capitalizing on ability to distract and misdirect so that reality appears skewed from its norms.
   

   From Ephesians: So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another.
   
   Deceit seems to taint the Christian witness, or something. I don’t know.

   Yes, it does. If I was completely honest, then I’d probably fall into the same fate as Christ, and frankly I don’t want that. I want a “wussy” version of the cross for my weak and lame self, because I don’t presume to be able to – or desire to – do the same heavy lifting Jesus did. So I’m a wuss and not a perfect Christian. If I had a gun pointed in my face, and was convinced the trigger would be pulled if I did not verbally deny God, then I rather suspect I would verbally (but not in my heart) deny God in order to save my own life, and possibly even minister to my attacker. If the attacker shoots me, I cannot bring him to Christ, so I have to protect him against himself by claiming not to be the target of his wrath.
   
   Actually I could consider that “mental reservation” because when I denied God, I knew that the shooter’s impression of God was false, and therefore was not really asking about God as in the one that I profess to believe in. Therefore, the “God” that he refers to is obviously phony – one look at this person’s behavior tells me we have different “gods” – so the God he hears me deny is IN FACT not the God whom I would not dare deny IN FACT. Therefore, I am not even deceiving under a different name because I am answering the question based on the God that I think the shooter actually knows about – a false God.
   
   Alan

 

[pnewton]

Pug:

If a mobster asks you pointedly if you are a cop, then he really wants to know if you are a cop, and you are exactly what he is afraid of, so if you say no, then you are saving your skin only if the guy buys your deception and is mislead. You aren’t buying your skin by being vague and him accepting your ambiguitiy.

Remember it’s not just about keeping alive. The best way to do that is be an accountant. The scenario being discussed is what keeps moral absolutists safe in their homes at night.

I have to agree with Alan. Many of the arguements here do sound like a politician’s double-speak.

I think we all agree that there are a lot of moral absolutes. I just don’t buy that eery possible venial sin is an absolute in every situation.

 

[Pug]

AlanFromWichita:

We will maintain the position that we are righteous no matter what mental gymnastics are required to support the claim that we are and you’re not. We will hold “you” (whoever “you” is) to the least letter of the law, while escaping its entire spirit with smoke and mirrors ourselves.

I agree, this is a frightening attitude, and that people do display from time to time.

I’d have more respect for the point of view, as I think it would be a healthier outlook, that yes, we are lying and what are you going to do about it? Do you wish us to quit doing undercover work? The answer to that is “no” because we are weak and fearful and we wish to have societal safety and we acknowledge that the “good guys” have to play a game themselves in order to catch the game players.

Uh, I’m not sure. I don’t trust police officers. I don’t exactly feel safer knowing they are out there deceiving people. The person being deceived could turn out to be me. Maybe if I could convince myself they were only after pathetic terrorists of some other religion in some other country, or something, then I might feel safer. But I have no such delusions. Who says they won’t lie to me if they lie to others?

The next question is if deceit is intrinsically immoral. This may sound like a stretch, but I refer to Paul’s writing that for him, everything is lawful but not all is useful.

Yes, a stretch. Here it is in one version: 23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. The quotes could indicate the translator thinks it is some kind of a slogan (not Paul’s perhaps).

Deceit does not build up. The context is to do stuff to edify your neighbor. Even if you could do something else freely, you should abstain (from meat possibly offered to idols) to help him. The context is less permissive, not more permissive. Perhaps police using deceit could cause others to use it?

I can excuse it because it is expedient, and we are talking about the behavior of government officials trying to do their jobs, not somebody claiming to be teaching God’s Honest Truth. This is being shrewd.

I understand expediency. It definitely seems to qualify. I’m also not sure what obligations a government (as opposed to a person) has in regard to self-discloure. Surely some type of dishonesty is employed in war to obfuscate troop locations, for example. Not sure if it is the same thing, though, as the enemy expects this and would not take it as a betrayal or lie.

I think it is unfair that the evil people of the world can checkmate the good people by boxing them into a defeat that can only seemingly be escaped by lying. (maybe with Nazi guards asking about Jewish children in hiding examples). But Christ was crucified! Surely it is only “seemingly” if we have faith. But, but, but, I don’t know. I can hear Nietzche laughing.

So I’m a wuss and not a perfect Christian.

Aren’t we all! But let’s continue with the Paul theme who reports God’s words of something like, my power is made perfect in (your) weakness. You don’t bring your attacker to Christ. A Christian does not have to worry that he is being killed and so can do no more work. There are other harvesters and your death may move things along for their work. It is not about our work (that is, work done through you or me specifically).

Actually I could consider that “mental reservation” because when I denied God, I knew that the shooter’s impression of God was false, and therefore was not really asking about God as in the one that I profess to believe in. Therefore, the “God” that he refers to is obviously phony

Great opportunity to tell that to the guy, instead of just denying the false God. He he he. Not that I claim to be more gutsy than you! But I would have some real fear that in “denying God” (false or whatever I tell myself) that I am somehow tricking my own self into something I ought not do. I’d be afraid to affirm and afraid to deny. Who knows what namby-pamby thing I’d end up doing.

You know, we may want to get on the table several types of this “mental reservation”. The article linked to by another poster (newadvent) gives two types of it, one of which is condemned by some pope or another. I think it would be okay to say, “Thanks for dinner, it was a nice evening,” even though you barely chocked down their carrots and dessert. You aren’t really trying to deceive with that statement. The cop is really trying to deceive with saying “no” to “are you a cop”. I want to say, “let your no mean no and your yes mean yes” but that proof text is totally destructible, so don’t bother. I just wish it to mean what I am saying.