Lying (Hypothetical Holocaust Situation)

[Arizona_Mike]

I would lie to protect an escaped slave from a bounty hunter in the prebellum American south, I would lie to protect a Jew from a Nazi (and this was not an isolated incident in history - read The Assisi Underground), and I would lie to Queen Elizabeth’s priesthunters if Saint Edmund Campion was concealed in a priesthole in my home. I would consider any other teaching as scrupulosity. As Catholic teaching has been different at different times, there is no clear teaching and I will follow the spiritual example of Pope Pius XXII and be guided by respect and love for human life.

 

[EasterJoy]

Lying is an implicit denial of the goodness of God’s Providence. It shows a lack of belief (and assent to that belief) that God has everything ordered with the most infinite love and care, ever to say that an individual must do evil in the hopes that good will come from it. God is not the cause of evil/lacking, his order is not lacking, nor does he set us up in some vague way to commit evil. Lying is evil, because it is a deliberate formation in language of an intellect upon error (that which does not exist and is not true). Lying is styled a “violation” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is that. It is a violation of the primary and ultimate purposes of communication in language (i.e., conveyance of the truth with certitude, and communion, respectively). It is also a violation or violence upon the intellect being formed erroneously. Lying is also styled an “intrisic evil” in the CCC. This means that in and of itself, the act is evil, and can never be called good/meritorious or neutral. Neither intent nor circumstance mitigate the evil of lying.

There are still many who stand by their lies, because they love their lies. Well, that should be quite scary to people who call themselves “Catholic”, since Our Lord Himself took the time to say (in John ch. 8 vs. 44):

– Nicole

So you’re saying that faking documents, including baptimal certificates, were faked by future Pope John XXIII in Istanbul by the direct order of then-Pope Pius XII, that was an evil thing to do? Instead of being declared, “Righteous Among the Nations”, as the Jews do, Pope John XXIII deserve to be condemned for his deliberate lies, is that right?

OK. Fine. What should they have done, instead? Just said, “Sorry, guys, but if Providence doesn’t step in, you’re going to be breathing gas and then up the old smoke stack. I can’t lie, so it’s out of my hands. Only God can save you now. It worked for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, after all. Give prayer a chance!”

 

[StrawberryJam]

What is your obligation to humanity with or without a god?

 

[yablabo]

So you’re saying that faking documents, including baptimal certificates, were faked by future Pope John XXIII in Istanbul by the direct order of then-Pope Pius XII, that was an evil thing to do? Instead of being declared, “Righteous Among the Nations”, as the Jews do, Pope John XXIII deserve to be condemned for his deliberate lies, is that right?

OK. Fine. What should they have done, instead? Just said, “Sorry, guys, but if Providence doesn’t step in, you’re going to be breathing gas and then up the old smoke stack. I can’t lie, so it’s out of my hands. Only God can save you now. It worked for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, after all. Give prayer a chance!”

Pardon me, EasterJoy, but any account that I’ve read of Msgr. Roncalli’s (future Pope John Paul XXIII) actions in Bulgaria, Romania or Hungary (particularly in Hungary) tells that he did do what he could to have the Jews within his “reach” sent to neutral countries or left unmolested in their father lands. While there is indication that he had heard of nuns distributing baptismal certificates to Jewish children in Hungary, I have not heard whether these children were baptized or not, there is no solid indication either way (it’s merely one person’s word against the next). The action of these Hungarian nuns is also pointed at as an inspiration for Msgr. Roncalli’s actions which consisted of issuing and distributing baptismal certificates, visas and immigration papers to the Hungarian Jews saving several hundred thousand people by the time the bolshevists invaded Hungary. There is indication that some or many of these documents were forged, but not whether that was at the bidding (or knowledge) of Msgr. Roncalli or the Jewish Agency of Palestine from whom he received some of the documents. I have personally found nothing overly convincing that Pope Pius XII gave a direct order that Msgr. Roncalli falsify baptismal certificates (or other papers) in Istanbul in order that the British police in Palestine let the Jewish refugees into the country.

So…instead of calling Popes John XXIII and Pius XII liars and thereby condemned, we would have to wait for credible testimony or other observable evidence of wrong-doing to manifest itself. Otherwise we couldn’t judge the actions of said men justly.

I personally believe that this issue is too passionately charged in the eyes of most and therefore has likely dropped off the cliff of either credulity or incredulity…

– Nicole

 

[StrawberryJam]

Practical help always ends up being the indicator of who loves who or what.
I found this thread very informative on that matter.

 

[centurionguard]

Lying is an implicit denial of the goodness of God’s Providence. It shows a lack of belief (and assent to that belief) that God has everything ordered with the most infinite love and care, ever to say that an individual must do evil in the hopes that good will come from it. God is not the cause of evil/lacking, his order is not lacking, nor does he set us up in some vague way to commit evil. Lying is evil, because it is a deliberate formation in language of an intellect upon error (that which does not exist and is not true). Lying is styled a “violation” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is that. It is a violation of the primary and ultimate purposes of communication in language (i.e., conveyance of the truth with certitude, and communion, respectively). It is also a violation or violence upon the intellect being formed erroneously. Lying is also styled an “intrisic evil” in the CCC. This means that in and of itself, the act is evil, and can never be called good/meritorious or neutral. Neither intent nor circumstance mitigate the evil of lying.

There are still many who stand by their lies, because they love their lies. Well, that should be quite scary to people who call themselves “Catholic”, since Our Lord Himself took the time to say (in John ch. 8 vs. 44):

– Nicole

I’m not dismissing what your saying but all morals have some logical sense to it. However; if it meant protecting and hiding your child from some idiot who wanted to force you to tell where you hid your child so he could rape or kill him/her. Your gonna stand and say you wouldn’t lie or bend the truth to protect your child?

C’mon; this is an absolute No Brainer.

 

[sw85]

I’m not dismissing what your saying but all morals have some logical sense to it. However; if it meant protecting and hiding your child from some idiot who wanted to force you to tell where you hid your child so he could rape or kill him/her. Your gonna stand and say you wouldn’t lie or bend the truth to protect your child?

C’mon; this is an absolute No Brainer.

No one’s saying they wouldn’t. All that’s being said is that they would be committing a venial sin by doing so.

That Anyone Would Do It doesn’t make it right. :-\

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It may well be that in moral terms, some of the scenarios and responses above do not fit the term “lying” as they are not done for material gain, not done to enhance the speaker’s prestige, not done out of malice, not done under holy oath, and do not deny one’s faith in the Lord. They may be described as telling a falsehood, but the evil intent to profit from one’s act is not present.

If not done for any of the above reasons, but done to save a life, whether out of an extraordinary situation in life (as with those priests and nuns who protected Jewish lives) or as part of one’s vocation, such as an intelligence officer or undercover law enforcement officer whose goal is to preserve the life of the innocent, it may be telling a falsehood, but it is not lying, in my view.

The same argument has been advanced for executioners, who act as part of a lawful court order. They kill, but are not guilty of murder. The soldier who is serving in a just war may take a life, but he is not a murderer. The father who takes the life of someone who has broken into his home to murder his children has taken a life, but he is not guilty of the sin of murder. Scripture is quite explicit on this point.

By the standards applied by some posters, every actor on stage or in cinema is guilty of the sin of lying, in that they say they are someone they are not (and they usually profit from their act, to boot). One could argue that the program or credits state their real identity at the end of the performance, yet that is not the statement of the actor, and would not morally release him from the “lie” if we use overly scrupulous standards. It could also be noted that most officers working in an undercover capacity do reveal their identity eventually in a court of law, to a judge and to the subject of the investigation and to a jury.

 

[centurionguard]

No one’s saying they wouldn’t. All that’s being said is that they would be committing a venial sin by doing so.

That Anyone Would Do It doesn’t make it right. :-\

So given what I said in my last post (“below”) which would you think is morally the worst sin.
The venial sin of lying to protect my child in hiding, so as not to be raped or killed by the real threat of thugs placing me in fear for the life of someone I love dearly or choosing to state the truth as if to say to hell with it, my child is hiding over yonder, take him and do with my child as you will?

Seems clearly evident to me that choosing to say a lie or speak the truth would incur sin in both scenarios. In fact speaking the truth and revealing the whereabouts of my hidden child would incur even greater sin because I the parent Am morally responsible for the safety of my children and in affect would be like sentencing them to harm or death.

Seems as though some are trying to rationalize as if to say you would be damned for both sins in these senarios.
I don’t buy any of this foolishness.

This reminds me of the parable of Jesus speaking about the Sabbath and people arguing to test Jesus about abstaining from work and some shepherd in the field has his sheep get stuck or lost on the Sabbath. The shepherd farmer goes out into the field on the Sabbath to retrieve his sheep. No Sin incurred.

Originally Posted by centurion guard:
I’m not dismissing what your saying but all morals have some logical sense to it. However; if it meant protecting and hiding your child from some idiot who wanted to force you to tell where you hid your child so he could rape or kill him/her. Your gonna stand and say you wouldn’t lie or bend the truth to protect your child?

C’mon; this is an absolute No Brainer.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

centurionguard: This reminds me of the parable of Jesus speaking about the Sabbath and people arguing to test Jesus about abstaining from work and some shepherd in the field has his sheep get stuck or lost on the Sabbath. The shepherd farmer goes out into the field on the Sabbath to retrieve his sheep. No Sin incurred.

Absolutely. Good analogy.

 

[sw85]

So given what I said in my last post (“below”) which would you think is morally the worst sin.
The venial sin of lying to protect my child in hiding, so as not to be raped or killed by the real threat of thugs placing me in fear for the life of someone I love dearly or choosing to state the truth as if to say to hell with it, my child is hiding over yonder, take him and do with my child as you will?

Seems clearly evident to me that choosing to say a lie or speak the truth would incur sin in both scenarios. In fact speaking the truth and revealing the whereabouts of my hidden child would incur even greater sin because I the parent Am morally responsible for the safety of my children and in affect would be like sentencing them to harm or death.

Seems as though some are trying to rationalize as if to say you would be damned for both sins in these senarios.
I don’t buy any of this foolishness.

You don’t buy that knowingly speaking falsehoods is evil?

As I said before, the two choices are not “lie or tell the truth.” In that case, yes, either would be a sin.

The proper course of action would be to protect your children with physical force from the thugs threatening you if you cannot reasonably summon in help in time.

Again, lying in such circumstances would, I think, be a relatively venial sin – not even of sufficient magnitude to incur separation from the Eucharist. Repent of it in your heart, and if you care to, confess it and the slate is clean. What is so difficult about saying this?

 

[yablabo]

It may well be that in moral terms, some of the scenarios and responses above do not fit the term “lying” as they are not done for material gain, not done to enhance the speaker’s prestige, not done out of malice, not done under holy oath, and do not deny one’s faith in the Lord. They may be described as telling a falsehood, but the evil intent to profit from one’s act is not present.

Since a lie is intrinsically evil, a person’s intent upon speaking does not mitigate evil. It is the material of the act, the act itself, and neither intent nor circumstance which define the act as evil.

Lack of intent to profit from one’s actions, whether this ever truly happens or not, does not make a lie any less a sin. The question is whether the sin is light or grave, not whether it is sin at all.

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

So given what I said in my last post (“below”) which would you think is morally the worst sin.
The venial sin of lying to protect my child in hiding, so as not to be raped or killed by the real threat of thugs placing me in fear for the life of someone I love dearly or choosing to state the truth as if to say to hell with it, my child is hiding over yonder, take him and do with my child as you will?

Seems clearly evident to me that choosing to say a lie or speak the truth would incur sin in both scenarios. In fact speaking the truth and revealing the whereabouts of my hidden child would incur even greater sin because I the parent Am morally responsible for the safety of my children and in affect would be like sentencing them to harm or death.

Seems as though some are trying to rationalize as if to say you would be damned for both sins in these senarios.
I don’t buy any of this foolishness.

This reminds me of the parable of Jesus speaking about the Sabbath and people arguing to test Jesus about abstaining from work and some shepherd in the field has his sheep get stuck or lost on the Sabbath. The shepherd farmer goes out into the field on the Sabbath to retrieve his sheep. No Sin incurred.

You’re forgetting the ability to use mental reservation, such as side-stepping a question and giving an apparent answer to a question that was asked, though, the answer doesn’t quite fit. Or…the holy silence which Christ maintained on points of questioning by the Sanhedrin and Pilate before he was taken to his death.

To lie out of weakness is not necessarily a mortal sin, which would in that case not damn you.

And, your example of Christ speaking of the shepherd pulling his sheep out of the pit on the Sabbath, that is related to the concept of “spirit of the law.” We are not to contradict the spirit of the law with the letter of the law as the Pharisees were doing. Lying, however, is always against the Spirit…and is never a good action, whether it does seem to be the lesser of two evils at a given time or not.

– Nicole

 

[centurionguard]

You don’t buy that knowingly speaking falsehoods is evil?

As I said before, the two choices are not “lie or tell the truth.” In that case, yes, either would be a sin.

The proper course of action would be to protect your children with physical force from the thugs threatening you if you cannot reasonably summon in help in time.

Again, lying in such circumstances would, I think, be a relatively venial sin – not even of sufficient magnitude to incur separation from the Eucharist. Repent of it in your heart, and if you care to, confess it and the slate is clean. What is so difficult about saying this?

Then as I see it in such a scenario there is another way to beat both infractions of sinning. Answer: Offering yourself as Victim to the Thugs and saving both your child from being harmed and yourself from being caught as a liar. Few though that I know under the pressure of human weakness would readily do this.

Especially the part of being a liar.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Since a lie is intrinsically evil, a person’s intent upon speaking does not mitigate evil. It is the material of the act, the act itself, and neither intent nor circumstance which define the act as evil.

Lack of intent to profit from one’s actions, whether this ever truly happens or not, does not make a lie any less a sin. The question is whether the sin is light or grave, not whether it is sin at all.

– Nicole

If it is not a sin, then there is no question, Nicole.

The circumstances show that the given scenarios do not fit the category of a “lie,” thus no sin was committed and it is not necessary to parse whether the sin is light or grave.

Should an actor be considered to be “lying” when he steps forth on stage and declares himself to be Macbeth, the Thane of Crawdor? Clearly not, although he is not speaking the truth. Just as clearly, he is not lying. If we argue that “intent” does not matter, every actor is sinning when he performs, as it does not matter that his/her intent was not to deceive but to entertain.

Does an undercover police officer or intelligence officer commit a sin whenever he or she claims to be someone he or she is not? Do we consider those professions to be necessary but yet somehow dishonorable ones, such that the members must sin every day? Of course not. We value and honor the people who do those tasks on behalf of a just society.

As the poster stated above, Jesus clearly taught that where the protection of a life is concerned, the sheperd protects his flock (even on a Sabbath day, which was a grave sin against God under Mosaic law). No sin was committed, either in Jesus’ parable or in the given scenarios.

 

[sw85]

Then as I see it in such a scenario there is another way to beat both infractions of sinning. Answer: Offering yourself as Victim to the Thugs and saving both your child from being harmed and yourself from being caught as a liar. Few though that I know under the pressure of human weakness would readily do this.

Especially the part of being a liar.

Obviously it’s the case that few people would live a perfectly sinless life. If history tells us anything, it’s that even attempting to do so will virtually guarantee you a bloody, lonely, and painful death (e.g., Christ, the Apostles). That doesn’t change the fact of sin.

 

[sw85]

Perhaps if we focus on the QUESTION instead???

What if someone asks you a SINFUL QUESTION? Simply asking a question does not automatically entitle the one who asked it to the truth.

Cut-and-paste here from Catechism:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. 2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason."284

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

2492 Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

Yep. But again, the alternative to lying need not be “telling the truth.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Since a lie is intrinsically evil, a person’s intent upon speaking does not mitigate evil. It is the material of the act, the act itself, and neither intent nor circumstance which define the act as evil.

Lack of intent to profit from one’s actions, whether this ever truly happens or not, does not make a lie any less a sin. The question is whether the sin is light or grave, not whether it is sin at all.

– Nicole

I think the confusion comes because we are using the colloquial definition of a lie interchangeably with the definition of a lie in the Catechism, as if these are the same thing. As it turns out, they are not.

The Church teaches that lying is an intrinsic evil, BUT the Church specifically does not teach that every untrue statement made with an intent to deceive is a lie!

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Note the qualification in the Catechism. If you are speaking or acting against the truth, the act does not meet the Church’s definition of a lie unless you are leading into error someone who has the right to know the truth. Webster’s dictionary uses the broader definition, which makes any untrue statement made with an intent to deceive or any creation of a false or misleading impression into a lie.

If the Church really meant that there was no time in which intentionally leading someone into error was not a lie, which is what you are implying, then the Church would teach “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error”, but that is not how the Church defines the meaning of a lie.

Rather, in her Catechism, the Church specifically narrows the definition of lying to exclude speech or action against the truth that leads into error someone who does not have the right to know the truth.

On that account, if the Pope were to have directed someone to lead another person into error when the other person being deceived had no right to know the truth he or she was seeking, the Pope would not be encouraging someone to lie at all. So, while there is disagreement over whether false baptismal certificates were generated with knowledge of Pope Pius XII, certainly if the sisters in Rome who were hiding Jewish men in their convents (this is a fact) lead the Nazis into error about that, the sisters would not be committing the sin of lying. It wouldn’t even be a venial sin, not a sin at all.

Therefore: It is not lying for police to deceive people suspected of crimes, it is not lying for people in the military to provide false information to those who have no right to the truth, it is not a lie for one of us to provide false information to a robber who wants to know if we have money or a murderer who asks us if we are alone in the house. It is not even a lie to raise your eyebrows to imply that your poker hand is better than it is.
If the person has no right to the information they seek, it is no lie to speak or act so as to mislead them.

 

[SteveGC]

Good thread. Would be interesting to explore the precise nature of “the right to know the truth”.

Some examples have been given, but I’m wondering if there could be a broad definition by which we can measure all examples…

when does someone not have the right to know? when they intend to sin based on their reception of that truth? when their desire for the information is selfish (i.e. being nosy) and they have no intent to base any future action on it? Anything else?

Any thoughts?

 

[EasterJoy]

Good thread. Would be interesting to explore the precise nature of “the right to know the truth”.

Some examples have been given, but I’m wondering if there could be a broad definition by which we can measure all examples…

when does someone not have the right to know? when they intend to sin based on their reception of that truth? when their desire for the information is selfish (i.e. being nosy) and they have no intent to base any future action on it? Anything else?

Any thoughts?

Just that the Catechism has clues on that, as well:

**2489 **Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.282

**282 **Cf. ⇒ Sir 27:16; ⇒ Prov 25:9-10

He who betrays a secret cannot be trusted, he will never find an intimate friend. Sir. 27:16

Discuss your case with your neighbor, but another man’s secret do not disclose;
Lest, hearing it, he reproach you, and your ill repute cease not. Prov. 25:9-10