Lying is ALWAYS a Sin: Resurrection Thread

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I decided to resurrect the topic of an older thread (in which I have participated before) because I apparently have found at the very least a partial answer to this moral conundrum that initially shook my faith a couple of years ago.

To recap, there are two scenarios that are being considered here. One is the scene in which a person who is running from those trying to murder him/her hides in your house, then the aforementioned potential murderers knock on your door and ask if the person they were looking for is in your house. To protect the person you have hiding, you would have to lie to the people who were pursuing him/her. But isn’t it a sin to lie?

The second scenario is that of the work of a spy or undercover cop, in which lies and subterfuge are the norm. But since lying is a sin, it would be immoral for a Catholic to be one. This, to remind others, is different from the question of being a soldier, since the main purpose of a soldier is to protect the state, and killing is the last option, while a spy or undercover cop has to maintain and even propagate lies to do his/her work.

The answer for the first scenario came from Dr. Peter Kreeft’s excellent lecture entitled “Seeking and Responding to Truth”, which can be found in Youtube. In summary, to tell the truth to those potential murderers is to commit a lie. You promised, verbally or not, to protect the person that hid in your house; therefore, to rat him/her out is to lie against that promise.

The second scenario, however, I still don’t have a definite answer to. Yes, for a spy or undercover cop to refuse to lie is actually lying to his/her superiors to whom he/she made a vow to do his/her job, but does it not make a vow morally unbinding if the vow makes one do something against his/her conscience or morality?

Thoughts?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

+JMJ+

I decided to resurrect the topic of an older thread (in which I have participated before) because I apparently have found at the very least a partial answer to this moral conundrum that initially shook my faith a couple of years ago.

To recap, there are two scenarios that are being considered here. One is the scene in which a person who is running from those trying to murder him/her hides in your house, then the aforementioned potential murderers knock on your door and ask if the person they were looking for is in your house. To protect the person you have hiding, you would have to lie to the people who were pursuing him/her. But isn’t it a sin to lie?

The second scenario is that of the work of a spy or undercover cop, in which lies and subterfuge are the norm. But since lying is a sin, it would be immoral for a Catholic to be one. This, to remind others, is different from the question of being a soldier, since the main purpose of a soldier is to protect the state, and killing is the last option, while a spy or undercover cop has to maintain and even propagate lies to do his/her work.

The answer for the first scenario came from Dr. Peter Kreeft’s excellent lecture entitled “Seeking and Responding to Truth”, which can be found in Youtube. In summary, to tell the truth to those potential murderers is to commit a lie. You promised, verbally or not, to protect the person that hid in your house; therefore, to rat him/her out is to lie against that promise.

The second scenario, however, I still don’t have a definite answer to. Yes, for a spy or undercover cop to refuse to lie is actually lying to his/her superiors to whom he/she made a vow to do his/her job, but does it not make a vow morally unbinding if the vow makes one do something against his/her conscience or morality?

Thoughts?

I haven’t finished watching the lecture (which is awesome) but just got to the part where he talks about your first case (about the 1hr or 1hr 2 min mark). I think his answer is slightly more subtle than “it would be a lie to tell the Nazis you’re hiding Jews because you’ve promised to hide the Jews.” That’s part of it, but I don’t think that’s the whole thing.

Slightly before that he says that our social interactions are something of a game, and that the rules do not always require us to give straight facts. An example he uses is when a person’s secretary tells a visitor that their boss is busy in a meeting or something, but really the boss just doesn’t want to talk to the visitor. (Or “oh yes, I love your new shoes!” or faking out an opponent in basketball game, or telling someone who casually asks how you’re doing that you’re fine despite having a crippling headache and being angry enough to punch holes in the wall, etc.) Because these sorts of things are fairly expected, and we are following “the rules of the game,” we are behaving in accord with the truth even if our statements are not factually correct and hence not lying.

He then says that sometimes "people so violate the rules of the game that they do not deserve the truth and you shouldn’t tell it to them." (right at 1hr 2 min)

If I understand what he is saying, which I may not, this will require some thought on my part - It is this, together with the promise to the people hiding in your attic, that makes it a lie to to reveal their presence to the Nazis. Not merely that you promised not to - if that was enough by itself, then promising to lie in any way would make the lie itself not a lie. But rather that your act of concealing the truth from these Nazis is actually motivated by your love of the truth, by the fact that giving the mere facts to these people would result in gross infringement against truth (namely the actions the Nazis would take against the Jews), and keeping the facts from these people would safeguard it.

I’m still thinking about this. I’ll have to play with it more. But I think such a statement could be extended to an undercover cop hiding among criminals. You could say that out of love for the truth, an undercover cop is trying to search for the truth about crimes and safeguard the truth from the criminals to prevent offenses against it, and the criminals by their desire to misuse the truth have lost the right be given facts about the cop’s activities at all.

Or something like that. In any case, he seems to be saying that whether a statement is a lie or not is much more than the simple matter of whether or not the statement you utter is factually correct.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Dr. Kreeft’s scenario is very simple. If you’re hiding somebody and a murderer comes in and tells you to tell the truth and tell them where said person is hiding, you say “Nope.”

We’re talking about people who are extraordinarily holy here because I’ll be honest, I would almost certainly lie.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is an old Catholic debate, and it’s basically this: Are there really people in certain situations who aren’t “owed” the truth and, thus, could be lied to by common definition?

Both the yes and no positions are permissible for Catholics to hold. I say no. Uttering something to somebody else that you know is false but that you want them to believe is true, is a lie, and that’s a sin.

Now, DECEPTION is allowed in certain extreme circumstances, where things can be said that are technically true but intentionally misleading, or if key facts are withheld. Of course, as I said, the circumstances would have to be extreme for even this not to be at least a venial sin. But lying-outright lying-is a sin.

That said, murderer at the door or something like that-I’d probably lie. I’ll be honest. And between you, God, and me, I won’t feel too guilty about it later either.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This is an old Catholic debate, and it’s basically this: Are there really people in certain situations who aren’t “owed” the truth and, thus, could be lied to by common definition?

Both the yes and no positions are permissible for Catholics to hold. I say no. Uttering something to somebody else that you know is false but that you want them to believe is true, is a lie, and that’s a sin.

Now, DECEPTION is allowed in certain extreme circumstances, where things can be said that are technically true but intentionally misleading, or if key facts are withheld. Of course, as I said, the circumstances would have to be extreme for even this not to be at least a venial sin. But lying-outright lying-is a sin.

That said, murderer at the door or something like that-I’d probably lie. I’ll be honest. And between you, God, and me, I won’t feel too guilty about it later either.

See, my issue is I can’t really see why deception can be ok but lying can’t. (Which is not to say that I’m ruling out this option, it just bothers me.)

I mean, it would seem to me that the difference between lying and deception is the difference between purposefully bashing someone over the head and purposefully convincing someone else to bash themselves over the head. Sure, you didn’t do it, but you purposefully caused it to occur and it is your fault that he was beat over the head. The fact that you didn’t directly do it does not seem to diminish your guilt.

To me it seems much more like violence. Perhaps deception is less violent or severe than direct lying, but both are inherently violent, and violence can rarely be justified.

Plus, I cannot imagine saying both that lying is always a sin, and that God would wave that one away as unimportant if it were for a good reason (saving an innocent person), because sin is by definition always terrible. I could see Him being happy about your wanting to save the man, but giving you a rather stern lecture on your methods if the “lie” were indeed wrong. But at the same time, I cannot see Him giving a stern lecture about that.

Of course, that just means that I may be in for a stern lecture or two. I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

 

[Tietjen]

Background: I have been in several threads on this topic and have yet to hear a compelling argument that supports NEVER lying.

That said, I generally attempt to avoid doing it because although I do not believe that each individual has “a right” to know every truth that exists, I don’t feel comfortable on those occasions when I feel the need to lie.

My opinion: It is not sinful to withhold the truth from those who have no moral right to know it. For example, the Nazis looking for Jews scenario… There is no “moral right” for the Nazis to know if a person is hiding a Jewish family. Therefore, the person is not required to put the Jewish family at risk by telling the Nazis the truth. I’d go so far as to say that the person has a moral obligation TO use whatever means available to prevent the Nazis from finding the Jewish Family; whether that be physically defending the family or by lying.

My Conclusion: If I am able to save the lives of the Jewish family by simply telling a lie, I do not believe that God will find fault in me for it.

As a sidenote, please read the book of Judith. There you will see the account of a widow who saved her people by deceiption and lying to Holofernes. After gaining his trust, she killed him and saved Israel from the Assyrians. What does the Bible say about Judith and her actions:
Judith 15:10:

By your own hand you have done all this. You have done good things for Israel, and God is pleased with them. May the Almighty Lord bless you forever!”And all the people said, “Amen!”

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, here’s a dilemma I actually found myself in some time ago when my mother was still alive. She was a Type I diabetic who also had a skin condition that cause her skin to break open and bleed easily, sometimes by just brushing up against a wall. She had come to visit us, and in the middle of the night I went to check on her. Her skin was cold and clammy, which meant she was having a diabetic reaction. It was essential that I get some sugar into her ASAP because brain damage was occurring until she got some into her system.

So I got some ice cream and woke her up. But when she was in a reaction like that, she was not thinking clearly. She acted (even spoke) like a two-year-old. And she knew that under normal circumstances, she was not supposed to have ice cream. She tightened her lips and refused to take it. She did not believe me when I told her it was for her own good. She acted like I was trying to poison her.

So what should I have done? Here are the options:

1. Do nothing. But if I do nothing, she could go into a coma and die.
2. Hold her down and shove the ice cream down her throat. The problem with this is that because of her skin condition it will cause a lot of damage to her body. Moreover, she may have been an old lady, but she could kick like a mule (she once kicked my sister in the stomach under similar circumstances). She could also bite, hard.
3. Call the paramedics and have them shove the ice cream down her throat. The problem with this is she still has the skin condition. Moreover, brain damage is occurring while I would be calling 911 and waiting for them to arrive. (It once took me about five minutes just to get through to 911.)
4. Convince her the ice cream is sugar free.

BTW, while you’re deciding, more brain damage is occurring.

And while you’re deciding that moral dilemma, you might consider this: Is it always stealing to take someone else’s property? If it is, is it stealing to take away a sniper’s gun? If someone always has the right to know the truth, then doesn’t the same rule apply to the sniper’s gun, that he always has the right to his property?

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. 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.

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.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

…

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So what should I have done? Here are the options:

1. Do nothing. But if I do nothing, she could go into a coma and die.
2. Hold her down and shove the ice cream down her throat. The problem with this is that because of her skin condition it will cause a lot of damage to her body. Moreover, she may have been an old lady, but she could kick like a mule (she once kicked my sister in the stomach under similar circumstances). She could also bite, hard.
3. Call the paramedics and have them shove the ice cream down her throat. The problem with this is she still has the skin condition. Moreover, brain damage is occurring while I would be calling 911 and waiting for them to arrive. (It once took me about five minutes just to get through to 911.)
4. Convince her the ice cream is sugar free.

BTW, while you’re deciding, more brain damage is occurring.

And while you’re deciding that moral dilemma, you might consider this: Is it always stealing to take someone else’s property? If it is, is it stealing to take away a sniper’s gun? If someone always has the right to know the truth, then doesn’t the same rule apply to the sniper’s gun, that he always has the right to his property?

Yeah, the distinctions involved here are extremely subtle and complex. Saying “lying is always wrong” may be true but deception and lying are subtle, but important distinctions.

In your case, I’m really not sure. Suffice to say, though, that I would have done EXACTLY as you did, and not lost any sleep over it later.

Here’s why I believe lying is always wrong. Dr. Feser on the subject:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderer-at-door.html

READ THE ARTICLE. Read it. Very easy to understand and clarifies a lot of issues. Suffice to say I don’t think that natural law could entail lying.

Here is the most relevant parts for the purposes of our discussion, but still. read it all:

Finally, anyone who claims that it would not be even mildly immoral to lie to the murderer needs to provide some alternative account which both explains why lying is wrong in other cases but does not forbid it in the case at hand. And there are serious problems with such accounts. For example, it is sometimes suggested that it is wrong to lie only when the person lied to has a right to know the truth, which the murderer at the door does not. One problem with this suggestion is that it fails to capture what is wrong with lying per se. For we can fail to respect someone’s right to know the truth even when we don’t lie – for example, when we simply keep silent when someone who has a right to certain information from us asks for it. The view would also have the absurd implication that we can freely tell falsehoods not only to murderers, but also to innocent people who happen not to have a right to know certain truths. For example, it would entail that when there are certain secrets that a government has a right to keep from its citizens (about sensitive military operations, say), the government may not only refrain from revealing them to the citizens, but even tell outright falsehoods instead. It would entail that parents could tell falsehoods to their children, rather than merely keeping silent, about matters they are too young to understand. It would entail that rather than merely keeping silent, we can tell falsehoods to other adults about private matters we have no obligation to inform them about. It would entail that God might tell us nothing but falsehoods, since we have no rights against Him – contrary to the Thomistic view (defended in the post just linked to) that God can only ever will what is good for us, despite His not being obligated to us in any way.

And, perhaps even more relevant in relation to this post, this article, entitled “What Counts as a Lie?”:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-counts-as-lie.html

But a “broad mental reservation” is not a lie. It involves restricting one’s meaning in such a way that the average language user could figure out one’s true meaning, given the conventions of usage and the circumstances, even if he is not likely to do so. Natural law writers typically give as everyday examples a confessor, doctor, lawyer, or secretary answering “No” or “I don’t know” when asked about matters he or she is professionally obliged to keep secret. This is legitimate, because given the context – namely the professional relationship a confessor has to a penitent, a doctor to a patient, a lawyer to a client, or a secretary to an employer – such answers can be understood by any reasonable person to mean “No, I have nothing I can tell you given my obligations to the person you are asking me about.” An accused person can also plead “Not guilty” even if he is guilty, because under the circumstances, everyone knows that what is meant is “Whether or not I committed the crime, I am taking advantage of the right I am afforded under law to plead ‘not guilty.’”

This does not mean that anything goes. Obviously there are many circumstances in which it would be wrong to speak ambiguously, evasively, or with even a broad mental reservation. If someone has a right to the information he is asking from us, we should give it to him without beating around the bush. But if he does not have a right to it, or if some harm would result from our giving it to him then and there, though we may not lie to him, we may nevertheless avoid telling him what he wants to know, via one of the methods in question. As everywhere in human life, there will be borderline cases. But this is no more a problem for the natural law view of lying than it is for any other view.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

This does not say that lying is permissible in certain circumstances. That is a position still currently up for debate. It says deception is definitely allowed occasionally, and withholding truth, but not lying.

 

[Bookcat]

This does not say that lying is permissible in certain circumstances. That is a position still currently up for debate. It says deception is definitely allowed occasionally, and withholding truth, but not lying.

I am not saying it is saying that lying is permissible in certain circumstances…rather the Catechism points to the evil of lying.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. 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.

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.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

…

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

 

[Bookcat]

First off there could always be the question – “is such and such a lie?” or is the matter …the “object” (scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1750) in question a different one --where it is simply not “lying”? I leave that to the professional moral theologians to hash out… But such is a real question I would think.

Now…after having said that

–Yes it is a sin to lie…always. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9987095&postcount=8

But one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…“discreet language”.

Now failing such…

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way. It is just that in the world where various kinds of virtues must be lived in difficult circumstances -we are not always going to find the right way to do so to live each one at that moment as we ought-- we will commit venial sins unfortunately)

Other examples could also be given …

Now all this* does not* make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie. Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie. It remains a lie. A sin. But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness. I am not saying it is “ok” to thus lie or “hey it is only a venial sin in various cases” or encouraging anyone to lie etc. It is something that ought not have happened. One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such….

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I am not saying it is saying that lying is permissible in certain circumstances…rather the Catechism points to the evil of lying.

Ah, my mistake. I apologize.

Something very important worth noting: Aquinas held that lying is always a sin. However, he addressed the objection that in the Old Testament Rahab is rewarded by God despite lying about the presence of the Israelites in her home. Why did God reward her?

The answer here is that her actions, and presumably the actions of us “murderer at the door people”, were done out of charity and to protect God’s people. God rewarded her not because of the sin but because her love, and desire to serve God, was so great. The lying was such a trivial, venial sin that she was rewarded even in spite of it.

So basically, things like murderer at the door type of lies might be so venial that God blesses you for your intentions. Ideally, you wouldn’t lie at all in such situations, but then that’s nearly impossible for all but the almost impossibly holy to accomplish without doing it out of a sense of spiritual vanity or even selfishness at the state of your own soul.

So don’t sweat it.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Yeah, the distinctions involved here are extremely subtle and complex. Saying “lying is always wrong” may be true but deception and lying are subtle, but important distinctions.

In your case, I’m really not sure. Suffice to say, though, that I would have done EXACTLY as you did, and not lost any sleep over it later.

Here’s why I believe lying is always wrong. Dr. Feser on the subject:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderer-at-door.html

READ THE ARTICLE. Read it. Very easy to understand and clarifies a lot of issues. Suffice to say I don’t think that natural law could entail lying.

Here is the most relevant parts for the purposes of our discussion, but still. read it all:

And, perhaps even more relevant in relation to this post, this article, entitled “What Counts as a Lie?”:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-counts-as-lie.html

Sorry, I’m not up to reading much of anything today since I’m sick and feeling worse by the minute. Maybe later.

I should mention I did take my decision to my Spiritual Director in Confession, and he said I committed no sin. There is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. Christ, as we recall, was condemned for breaking the Sabbath.

BTW, when I posted this dilemma some time ago in another thread on this forum, someone told me all four options were sinful, which would mean I had absolutely no choice but to sin. Frankly, I cannot believe God would allow any of His children to be in a situation where there is no choice but to sin.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"Marc Anthony:

For example, it is sometimes suggested that it is wrong to lie only when the person lied to has a right to know the truth, which the murderer at the door does not. One problem with this suggestion is that it fails to capture what is wrong with lying per se. For we can fail to respect someone’s right to know the truth even when we don’t lie – for example, when we simply keep silent when someone who has a right to certain information from us asks for it. The view would also have the absurd implication that we can freely tell falsehoods not only to murderers, but also to innocent people who happen not to have a right to know certain truths. For example, it would entail that when there are certain secrets that a government has a right to keep from its citizens (about sensitive military operations, say), the government may not only refrain from revealing them to the citizens, but even tell outright falsehoods instead. It would entail that parents could tell falsehoods to their children, rather than merely keeping silent, about matters they are too young to understand. It would entail that rather than merely keeping silent, we can tell falsehoods to other adults about private matters we have no obligation to inform them about. It would entail that God might tell us nothing but falsehoods, since we have no rights against Him – contrary to the Thomistic view (defended in the post just linked to) that God can only ever will what is good for us, despite His not being obligated to us in any way.

Just a distinction - the “lost the right to be given truth” statement is different from “does not have a right to this particular truth”. The first says that people in general should be told the truth if they’re told anything, but can by their actions lose that right (which is debatable). The second says that if a person does not have the right to the truth, you don’t have to give it to him (which is certainly true, but may or may not allow lying in some cases).

The first is stronger. If I don’t have a right to a particular part of the truth, then you don’t have to tell me, but if I do have the right to have everything you do tell me be true then you can’t lie to me (and I think deception would be wrong in this case as well because you’d be purposefully causing me to believe other than what is true, which is purposefully planting falsehoods in my mind whether you do so directly or indirectly - although I do not consider the socially acceptable “I’m fine” things to count as either). But if by my actions of, say, wanting to murder someone in your house I not only do not have the right to know whether someone is in your house but ALSO, as a separate but related issue, no longer even have the right to be told truth when you do speak to me, then I think giving information that is straight up false would be acceptable.

To me, it seems that if it’s possible to loose one’s right to not be shot in the head, then it’s possible to loose one’s right to be told the truth. It’s rather like violence

Especially in a case where a murderer is trying to break into your house and you have the choice between getting rid of him by lying or getting rid of him by killing or seriously injuring him. We know that killing him would be acceptable, although we should try to do as least harm as we (reasonably, while insuring the safety of those we are protecting) can. And I fully admit that lying counts as doing harm and is a violent act. But it seems like it should be considered as another type of violence - an extreme measure, bad in normal circumstances, to be avoided, but to be considered less harmful than and to be preferred to blowing someone’s brains out.

BTW, when I posted this dilemma some time ago in another thread on this forum, someone told me all four options were sinful, which would mean I had absolutely no choice but to sin. Frankly, I cannot believe God would allow any of His children to be in a situation where there is no choice but to sin.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that poster was wrong. It’s true that no choice is ideal, but that’s not the same as all choices being sinful, and I also do not think it is possible for all options to be sinful. For the record, I would also do exactly what you did, and not think there was any sin.

 

[hannajomar]

Kay Cee, the argument can be made that when you told your mother the ice-cream was sugar free, you were not lying to her. Her perception was off, so she mistakenly believed the ice-cream was dangerous. Even though your statement was factually false, your action was to convince your mother that it was good for her - which is true.

I’m wondering why there does not appear to be a more articulate position from the Church regarding this type of thing.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Kay Cee, the argument can be made that when you told your mother the ice-cream was sugar free, you were not lying to her. Her perception was off, so she mistakenly believed the ice-cream was dangerous. Even though your statement was factually false, your action was to convince your mother that it was good for her - which is true.

I’m wondering why there does not appear to be a more articulate position from the Church regarding this type of thing.

I was wondering the same thing, given that there is some wiggle room. Some searching on the internet revealed catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right, which is interesting.

I think the answer to “why hasn’t there been a more articulate position” is actually at the end of that article:

In the end, then, the current Catechism does not directly address our problem. Still, after all the consultation which preceded the few changes that were made, the Catechism represents a considerable weight of ecclesiastical opinion on the side of a definition which incorporates both objective reality and human intentionality: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” (a citation from Augustine), and “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error” (CCC 2482, 2483). Perhaps the very emphasis on the intention to deceive in this definition suggests another possible line of thought. For, when we speak falsely to our murderous thugs, we may at least question whether our intention is to deceive. Presumably, that intention—if it exists consciously at all—is very secondary. What we primarily intend is to prevent them from doing evil.

It would satisfy a well-formed conscience, I think, to permit the speaking of falsehood when it is the only means we can think of to prevent someone from committing an immoral act. But if so, it is hard to reach such a conclusion only by denying the intention to deceive. There must be something more than that, for we could also say that when we lied to our boss last Wednesday, our intention was not to deceive but to save our skin. Clearly this is just one more possibility for exploration, and so far all the possibilities in history have not led to a formal doctrinal development to settle the matter. It remains the case that, despite our instincts, we don’t quite know how to justify deceiving our proverbial thugs, or telling jokes that involve deception, or doing undercover police work, or engaging in military counter-intelligence activities during wartime.

Happily, the Church’s imprecision on this question does not seem to have led to a great heresy or to widespread and dangerous confusion. Perhaps the reason is simple: For most of us, the moral challenge is to find the courage to tell the truth instead of “spinning” it for petty purposes. Our most common problem is not deciding grave questions of life and death but purifying our own questionable intentions. So while lying is a fascinating subject, we are wise to remember the kinds of cases which make it so are very different from the ones we ourselves typically face. If we ask whether Augustine and Aquinas were right in condemning all falsehoods, we may well choose to answer in the negative. But if we ask whether they were right in condemning our own weak and typical lies, only one answer is possible. On these lies, every saint agrees.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Especially in a case where a murderer is trying to break into your house and you have the choice between getting rid of him by lying or getting rid of him by killing or seriously injuring him. We know that killing him would be acceptable, although we should try to do as least harm as we (reasonably, while insuring the safety of those we are protecting) can. And I fully admit that lying counts as doing harm and is a violent act. But it seems like it should be considered as another type of violence - an extreme measure, bad in normal circumstances, to be avoided, but to be considered less harmful than and to be preferred to blowing someone’s brains out.

The violence connection is one that I’ve heard brought up before, and it’s an interesting objection. I still say that neither position is technically heretical since the Catechism uses specifically imprecise language, so I’m not going to persecute anybody here over what is, honestly, a small issue considering how small of a sin lying would be anyway.

I’m almost sure there was some discussion about this in the comments of one of the threads above (or perhaps one of his other threads on lying). When I’m up for it I might try and find the relevant points, though the discussions are wrong.

Dr. Feser also has a post titled “The Santa Clause”, where he says that you can’t tell your children Santa Claus is real, since that’s lying. Naturally, this made him unpopular with a few people, but give him credit for consistency. He was combating what he perceived to be a weak argument from Dr. Kreeft.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I still say that neither position is technically heretical…

I certainly hope so, though I have heard it said both ways. Fortunately, this issue won’t often come up as far as actions are concerned (with apologies to Kay Cee who must deal with this), and so I can for the most part say “whatever the Church teaches is true” without actually having any idea what that actually is or if there is an official detailed position on this issue, and hope that God will forgive me my confusion. (And I think He probably will, He seems like a forgiving sort of Fellow.)

Dr. Feser also has a post titled “The Santa Clause”, where he says that you can’t tell your children Santa Claus is real, since that’s lying. Naturally, this made him unpopular with a few people, but give him credit for consistency. He was combating what he perceived to be a weak argument from Dr. Kreeft.

Yeah, Dr. Feser is certainly internally consistent so far as I can tell. I just tend to think that Dr. Kreeft is closer to being right (I think Dr. Feser has interpreted Dr. Kreeft’s argument in a way that makes it seem weaker than it is), even if perhaps some care needs to be taken in explain what exactly it is that he is saying.