Lying and undercover work

[pnewton]

Pug:

I Uh, I’m not sure. I don’t trust police officers. .

This statement speaks volumes.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pug:

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?

You are absolutely right. As a theoretical manner we might be able to excuse it, but as a practical manner it teaches the folks with guns to become better liars and can and will deceive the public into incrementally more power and the people less.

Actually, that’s the way it works now, if you consider politics, the working authority over police, in the picture. Especially if we rely on the government to uphold our moral code, it will become progressively more intrusive and invasive and deceptive. This is why I actually argue for separation between the Church and state as to which problems they are to solve and by what means.

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).

The way I figure, if the law is written in your heart, and you are doing something in clear conscience, the all things are lawful because you have become the law. To the degree that the law is actually written in one’s heart is the degree to which one could correctly make this statement.

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?

Of course. Why should I tell the truth to someone I know is an unrepentant liar? That’s my worldly side speaking.

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.

Not fair, for sure. We have to keep in mind who is the prince of this world, and it becomes obvious that the whole thing about controlling each others’ behavior is one big trap. Personally I can’t hold anybody’s honestly held opinion on this as intrinsically evil.

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).

Exactly. As long as we are being purists, dare I add the example that babies who are aborted have actually fulfilled their God-given role here on earth, and are not really the ones most harmed because they will not suffer hell? My daughter came up with a similar question during a discussion with her religion teacher.

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.

Good point. We just have to rely on the promise the Holy Spirit will give us the right words when we need them.

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.

I cannot find any flaws in your logic throughout this post.

Although it might not be sinful, I’ve decided to take the example of a particular non-denominational preacher I once heard preaching about the truth in a marital relationship. If his wife fixes a dinner he doesn’t like, that’s what he tells her. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t appreciate her, or that she is a bad cook, just lets her know that information in case she ever wants to do me a favor again.

I think he makes a good point: “But last week you said you loved it.” “Yes I know dear but I was just trying to protect your feelings.” “Oh dear, I feel worse now because not only did I make you a cruddy dinner once, but you don’t even have the courage in yourself or the confidence in me to trust me with your honesty – next time you go around trying to protect my feelings, maybe you should relax, quit trying to outguess me, and just tell me the truth instead.”

Alan

 

[Brendan]

The real question is not if such lies are injurious to Truth, they are, but is such lying sinful, and if so, to what extent.

The CCC on the subject.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Like any sin, the issue of Intent comes into play. Is the Intent of the undercover cop to deceive to cause grave injury to justice or charity? Unlikely.

That does not abrogate the sin, but puts it almost certainly in the venial category (as it is certainly not against the virtues of justice and charity).

The undercover cop would do well to discuss this with his confessor, but it could easily be presumed that this would not jeopardize his soul, or prohibit his reception of Communion.

 

[Pug]

pnewton:

This statement speaks volumes.

Apparently, but they are blank to me. What do you infer? In my experience, a likely inference a person might make from a generalized distrust of the police would be race, but I doubt you mean that.

I agree with Brendan; that is, I doubt being an undercover cop would impact eligibility for communion (mortal sin).

 

[pnewton]

Pug:

In my experience, a likely inference a person might make from a generalized distrust of the police would be race, but I doubt you mean that.

That thought never crossed my mind.

 

[tuopaolo]

We are called by the natural law and also by the vows of our baptism to turn away from all sin, both mortal sin and venial sin. Venial sin is not an OK form of sin. All sin is evil and all are called to holiness.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

One of the most interesting parables I think is the one about the dishonest steward who gets praised by his master who just fired him for dishonesty, apparently by using his dishonesty shrewdly for worldly advantage later. He used his remaining time with the books to reduce many people’s debt, I guess so that he would have friends in “low” places once he got kicked out from his “high” place.

Anyway, what does this say, if anything, about the scenario being discussed? Is worldly dishonesty a possible licit means to an end?

Alan

 

[Shralp]

I’m having a hard time parsing what the consensus is here.

I think people are falling into three camps:

1.) Lying is always wrong, so the situations I described at the outset are always and everywhere sinful.

2.) Lying is not wrong if it’s done for legitimate purposes.

3.) It’s not really lying if there’s a point of view from which the response is true (even if you’re certain that POV is not shared by the person you’re talking to).

I reject #2 outright because, as other commenters said, the ends cannot justify the means. I also have a hard time with #3 because it seems like mental games.

But I’m unwilling to say that #1 is right. It just seems that Catholic moral theology has to allow for undercover work in some manner. It makes no sense that we cannot kill ordinarily, but it’s ok under just war yet we must always tell the truth, even to an enemy – i.e., you can kill the enemy, but not lie to him!!!

Seeing as the commandment not to murder is often mistranslated as not to kill, I wonder whether there’s not something similar going on here with the translation of lying.

 

[pnewton]

Shralp:

Seeing as the commandment not to murder is often mistranslated as not to kill, I wonder whether there’s not something similar going on here with the translation of lying.

If you are refering to the Ten Commandments, there is no, “Thou shalt not lie.” It is, “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The two are not the same.

 

[tuopaolo]

The moral law against murder and the moral law against lying are founded in natural law and thus have their foundation apart from the Ten Commandments or any other positive divine law which may give them full or partial expression.

 

[Shralp]

Well, I suppose I’m wondering about mistranslations anywhere, be it from Scripture, works of doctors of the Church, or the catechism.

I’m having a hard time reconciling the CCC’s prohibition and definition of lying with the school of thought that says undercover work is ok.