The truth is, we know what should be done in most situations.
It becomes complicated when we do not want to do it.
- Status
It becomes complicated when we do not want to do it.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Does anyone know how specifically the changes in the CCC (mentioned in the first post) affect our moral behavior with lying?
Before, it was acceptable to speak a falsehood if the person had no right to know it. NOW with that removed, does that mean we can no longer do it? In other words: Is it a sin to speak a falsehood or lead a person into error if the person has no right to know?
I think THAT is the ultimate question that needs to be addressed. What exactly do these changes to the CCC mean? If we know the answer to that, then we can easily tackle all the other moral dilemmas like protecting someone’s reputation, undercover cops or spies, hiding jews in the basement, etc.
Before, it was acceptable to speak a falsehood if the person had no right to know it. NOW with that removed, does that mean we can no longer do it? In other words: Is it a sin to speak a falsehood or lead a person into error if the person has no right to know?
I think THAT is the ultimate question that needs to be addressed. What exactly do these changes to the CCC mean? If we know the answer to that, then we can easily tackle all the other moral dilemmas like protecting someone’s reputation, undercover cops or spies, hiding jews in the basement, etc.
T
tafan
Guest
Here is the story I read about these changes (and thanks for posting them BTW). This topic, is it ever permissible to lie when the other party has no right to the truth, has been under debate by moral theologians for quite some time. The church has not made any definitive statement, but it very wary of taking a position that is easy to interpret as “its ok to lie this time”. Our pastor once told me that in confession, justification for lying is one of the most common things he comes across. People are very good at justifying lies. So while the church was close to saying, as most many theologians have said, that it is ok to lie in the classic “hiding a Jew from the Nazis” example, that is an extreme case. The vatican at the end, decided the original wording was too permissive and that the idea of lying when the other party has no right to the truth not yet resolved. That is my understanding of the story as I remember reading it a couple of years ago.
I will see if I can find a reference for the article I read about it.
T
thistle
Guest
I guess nobody looked at the thread I gave the link to so here is a comment I made in that thread:
"All lying is a sin. It is simply an issue of whether it is a sin of grave matter or venial matter.
You are right that some people (your examples) do not have the right to know the truth but we should not be thinking that lying to them is not a sin but rather how do we answer them without telling them the truth.
I’ve been discussing this with Father Lukefahr who is a highly repsected Catholic educator (offers free online theology courses) and is well-known to many members in these forums.
He says that “When someone inquires about information to which they have no right or which might seriously harm another,** we may use the technique known as mental reservation.”**
For example, if a close friend might tell you about a serious problem, trusting you to keep it a secret. Someone else asks, “Do you know anything about this?” You may legitimately reply, “No, I don’t.” Implied are the words (the mental reservation), “I don’t know anything that I’m free to tell others.”
Similarly, if nazis are knocking at your door asking if there are any Jews in your house, the mental reservation would be: “There are no Jews in this house” (that I am going to turn over to you).
So these are not lies which are not a sin. They are not lies at all and so cannot be a sin."
"All lying is a sin. It is simply an issue of whether it is a sin of grave matter or venial matter.
You are right that some people (your examples) do not have the right to know the truth but we should not be thinking that lying to them is not a sin but rather how do we answer them without telling them the truth.
I’ve been discussing this with Father Lukefahr who is a highly repsected Catholic educator (offers free online theology courses) and is well-known to many members in these forums.
He says that “When someone inquires about information to which they have no right or which might seriously harm another,** we may use the technique known as mental reservation.”**
For example, if a close friend might tell you about a serious problem, trusting you to keep it a secret. Someone else asks, “Do you know anything about this?” You may legitimately reply, “No, I don’t.” Implied are the words (the mental reservation), “I don’t know anything that I’m free to tell others.”
Similarly, if nazis are knocking at your door asking if there are any Jews in your house, the mental reservation would be: “There are no Jews in this house” (that I am going to turn over to you).
So these are not lies which are not a sin. They are not lies at all and so cannot be a sin."
I am not sold on this idea.
It seems to me you very skillfully took active lies and made them lies of ommision.
We should draw the line elsewhere, mental reservations are acts of deception.
Perhaps the answer “There are no Jews here.” to the Nazi will suffice.
The Nazi assumes one thing, you mean a different thing.
“No.” to “Do you know anything about this?” because you know everything about it.
You tell the exact truth and let the person (in their own deceptive intentions) go where they will with it.
R
Rascalking
Guest
So you let innocent people die just so you can tell the truth? That’s cool.
I disagree. If a nazi came to my house and I hid jews there, I’d politely tell the Nazi that there was nothing here. If they left, great. If not, well I did my best .
At least you can feel real good about yourself watching innocent people be dragged to their death. Yes, they’ll suffer greatly and they are innocent people who did nothing wrong, but gosh darnit, you didn’t lie!
S
smichhertz
Guest
If you could find the reference that would be great! Thanks!
So based of this explanation, it is acceptable to still use the “right to know” argument, it’s just not officially backed by the church. The Church has simply refrained from any official judgment at this time.
S
smichhertz
Guest
But isn’t mental reservation only a THEORIZED solution at this point? Is there anything from the Church that specifically affirms the use of mental reservation?
Furthermore, does the removal of the “right to know” from the CCC mean that leading someone into error (by use of mental reservation, so not a lie) could still be sinful although not technically lying?
Sorry, I know I’m asking a ton of questions, but I’m just trying to really hammer out what this change in the CCC means.
S
smichhertz
Guest
I agree, there is definitely a gap between what the CCC currently tells us about lying and what makes sense on a practical level. Hopefully, we can help bridge that gap.
T
thistle
Guest
Sorry but why do you say the “right to know” has been removed from the CCC.
See below:
CCC 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.
You misread my post entirely.
In all charity (sorely lacking in your response), I suggest you re-read it.
An apology may be in order here.
R
Rascalking
Guest
T
tafan
Guest
All 2489 says that we do not have to tell someone something if they do not have the right to know. It does not say we can tell a lie. If I have a friend who is an alcoholic, saying “he is not an alcoholic” is a lie, saying nothing about it is not. Whereas, if someone has the right to know something, then saying nothing is a lie of ommission. That is my understanding.
T
thistle
Guest
So what is the problem.The Church has never said its okay to lie to someone who does not have the right to know. It says they have no right to the truth which is different from saying you can lie to them. The teaching is clear. You either stay silent or find the words to answer without telling a lie or giving the truth (e.g. by the mental reservation technique).
I’ve never heard of a lie of ommission by staying silent. That’s interesting. Can you point out where in the CCC the Church teaches this? I would like to read about it.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Paragraph 2483 defines lying and used to have “right to know” attached to it. Now it has been removed. That’s what I have been referring to.
The fact that “right to know” is left in on paragraph 2489 is the crux of the problem. So under the old CCC I could simply “lie” and it wouldn’t be considered a lie since the person had no right to know (i.e. say “I don’t know” when I do know). BUT since the new definition of lying in the CCC does not include this, that means I can no longer lie even if the person does not have a right to know. So in paragraph 2489 (which you quote), they tell me that I am not supposed to reveal the truth to a person who does not have a right to know, AND I cannot lie.
**
So basically, according to the CCC (current edition) whenever someone does not have the right to know a truth I can neither lie nor tell the truth.**
And I understand that tricks like mental reservation, deflection, etc are options. But many times when someone is asking about someone else (especially in areas of scandal) anything other than a straight “yes” or “no” answer REVEALS the answer. So if someone says to me “I heard so and so did X” and I reply “none of your business” or use vague wording, it becomes pretty obvious that I knew the person did it and am simply trying to avoid saying it.
Hopefully, that clarifies it a bit.
T
tafan
Guest
The classic example of lieing by ommission would be when we hear someone else slandered by another, we know it is false, yet we remain silent and do not correct it, thereby allowing someone’s good reputation to be ruined.
A quick glance would be the following out of the CCC
I added the boldness of every attitude. If I remain silent to a known slander, that would be covered by those too words.
T
tafan
Guest
It is my understanding that some moral theologians do not consider the ability to stay silent good enough for the classic “hiding a jew from the Nazis” example. Mental reservation, as you described in post #24 is sufficient for me.
On the other hand, where is it described in the CCC?
T
thistle
Guest
The technique of mental reservation is not in the CCC per se but the following in my opinion could cover such a thing.It is my understanding that some moral theologians do not consider the ability to stay silent good enough for the classic “hiding a jew from the Nazis” example. Mental reservation, as you described in post #24 is sufficient for me.
On the other hand, where is it described in the CCC?
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.
The reason we have so many debates about lying is that at a general level the Church teaching is clear on lying but at a micro level it is not. Some people maintain that not all lying is a sin while others like me say that all lying is a sin, either grave or just venial.
Those who say all lying is not a sin would point to the above “no one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it”. However, not revealing the truth does not mean you are allowed to lie. You have to answer in a way without lying that does not reveal the truth. For me that means a technique like mental reservation is “making use of discreet language”.
The bottom line is that neither side can claim 100% certainty about their position (including me). Even the Church Fathers were split on this.
To be honest I really wish the Church would make issues like this clear. The faithful should not have to debate stuff this. The Church should make its teachings clear so we are all on the same page.
J
JimG
Guest
I doubt that the Church could clarify the moral standing of every conceivable situation in which ‘deception’ is used.
Acting is deception. Actors pretend to be someone they are not. And they are well paid for it.
Police sting operations are essentially actors without disclosure. They are pretending to be someone they are not in order to catch criminals.
Police interrogators are allowed to lie to suspects in order to elicit the truth.
TV programs which set up hidden cameras to prank someone are deceptions. Even the old “Candid Camera” program used deception.
There was another old program using 3 contestants, only one of which told the truth, while the others lied. The panelists had to figure out which one was telling the truth. Lying was an essential part of the program.
Even polite conversation can be deceptive, though I would not call it lying. My wife always projected a positive attitude. Ask ‘how are you?’, she would reply “Just fine!” enthusiastically, even if she was having a terrible day. In the hospital the doc came in each morning, asking how she was doing. “Fine!” was the reply. I commented that he’s getting paid pretty good to see someone who is just fine. But that wasn’t lying; that’s just positive attitude instead of negative attitude. A purist might call it lying.
And if I ask how you’re doing, I’d rather hear some positive things rather than negative things, even though the negative things may more accurately reflect your thoughts. Please–withhold the truth!
“Did you know that X is cheating on her husband?”
I’ll answer “No, and I’d rather not hear about it.” Even if I already know about it. Is that a lie?
“Does this outfit make me look fat?” That is a question to be answered tactfully, not truthfully.
“You must think I’m really dumb.” Another question which should be answered with more tact than truth, especially if I really do think that.
Acting is deception. Actors pretend to be someone they are not. And they are well paid for it.
Police sting operations are essentially actors without disclosure. They are pretending to be someone they are not in order to catch criminals.
Police interrogators are allowed to lie to suspects in order to elicit the truth.
TV programs which set up hidden cameras to prank someone are deceptions. Even the old “Candid Camera” program used deception.
There was another old program using 3 contestants, only one of which told the truth, while the others lied. The panelists had to figure out which one was telling the truth. Lying was an essential part of the program.
Even polite conversation can be deceptive, though I would not call it lying. My wife always projected a positive attitude. Ask ‘how are you?’, she would reply “Just fine!” enthusiastically, even if she was having a terrible day. In the hospital the doc came in each morning, asking how she was doing. “Fine!” was the reply. I commented that he’s getting paid pretty good to see someone who is just fine. But that wasn’t lying; that’s just positive attitude instead of negative attitude. A purist might call it lying.
And if I ask how you’re doing, I’d rather hear some positive things rather than negative things, even though the negative things may more accurately reflect your thoughts. Please–withhold the truth!
“Did you know that X is cheating on her husband?”
I’ll answer “No, and I’d rather not hear about it.” Even if I already know about it. Is that a lie?
“Does this outfit make me look fat?” That is a question to be answered tactfully, not truthfully.
“You must think I’m really dumb.” Another question which should be answered with more tact than truth, especially if I really do think that.
R
Rascalking
Guest
That’s not called “tact” it’s called “I don’t want to get slapped, so I’ll answer politely!
”- Status