Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m afraid I’ve been beating a thread to death. Please allow me to pretend I can ignore everything I’ve posted and start here from scratch.

There are several questions at hand. First, does an act require intent to be sinful? Does that act also have to be grave matter in order to be mortal sin?

Might you be sent to hell for venial sins, or only mortal sins?

Is lying always a grave matter, or can lying with intent be a venial sin?

Maybe that can help us establish a basis for a more fruitful discussion, I hope.

Now comes the part I wish to assert: First, I don’t know what I would do under extreme pressure. I can only trust in the Holy Spirit to give me guidance at that time, as well as any other time. Now, I can certainly imagine, and it wouldn’t bother me a bit to think about today, that if I were to lie to a Nazi to save your life or my life, (let’s not get into the denying of God part just yet, if you please) then I honestly believe I have done what I think is best, given whatever is in my mind and all I’ve ever seen and heard, and I’m not ashamed to stand before God and ask Him, “Lord, did I do well in this situation?” I can’t claim to know whether God would send me to hell, but I’d bet my soul on it.

Now, whether it is an unpunished sin, or a non-sin, or a lightly punished sin (like as in a few years in purgatory) my contention is that I simply do not believe, with all my heart, even after hearing what you all have said, that the Jesus whom I wish to be friends with, would not speak on my behalf. And with Him on my side, I’m not really worried about rules any more – if Jesus said I did well, then that’s good enough for me. If I do wrong, then I’m willing to take that chance. Personally, I think Jesus would rather use my failures to bring me to poverty for the purposes of spiritual growth, than to use my failures as reasons that I should go to hell. I may be totally wrong; this is my opinion at this time and I choose to exercise my authority to stand by it – at least for now. Others may have and speak opinions to the contrary. Whether you support my thought or give me new ways to look at it, either way I stand to grow, and it is my hope that you do, too.

That’s the “collective” you.

I rest my case. I promise I will not post again in this thread at least until somebody else does after this post. I suppose that means you know one way to handle it if your sick of my stuff.

Alan

 

[LilyM]

I’m afraid I’ve been beating a thread to death. Please allow me to pretend I can ignore everything I’ve posted and start here from scratch.

There are several questions at hand. First, does an act require intent to be sinful? Does that act also have to be grave matter in order to be mortal sin?

Depends on what you mean by ‘intent’, I suppose. I know in the legal jurisdiction I work in one can certainly commit minor infringements of the law, and so be liable to punishment by it, through recklessness or carelesness. One doesn’t always need a positive intent to do the specific wrong act.

Might you be sent to hell for venial sins, or only mortal sins?

Can one die of a minor fleshwound? No. But what if you suffer from a hundred such minor fleshwounds all at the same time? Well, they might not individually or collectively kill you, but they’d certainly seriously jeopardise your health and life, and you’d be stupid to voluntarily wound yourself that many times.

Surely you can see where this analogy is going. Venial sins individually or collectively won’t get you sent to hell, but they’ll certainly be a grave risk to your spiritual health, and in that unhealthy state you’d be more susceptible to mortal sin, and so damnation.

Is lying always a grave matter, or can lying with intent be a venial sin?

‘By its very nature lying is to be condemned’. Sure sounds like it’s always grave matter to me.

the Jesus whom I wish to be friends with, would not speak on my behalf. And with Him on my side, I’m not really worried about rules any more – if Jesus said I did well, then that’s good enough for me.

But they’re HIS rules - given to us through His Church. He wouldn’t give them to us if He weren’t worried about them! Why then would He say that someone did well who was disobedient?

And He rewards good and faithful (in small as well as big things) servants, not just those so-called friends who treat Him like some non-judgemental buddy figure. ‘Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will be saved’. Why would He be happy with a mere friend when He wants so much more of you?gb

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Depends on what you mean by ‘intent’, I suppose.

By “intent” I mean whatever it’s “supposed” to mean (according to church) in this context. My guess is that it is the same as the “intent” necessary for grave matter to be mortal sin.

In a similar fashion, I’m guessing that without such intent, one can neither commit a mortal sin nor a venial, but I’m leaving that as an open assumption so that if I’m wrong according to Church teachings (as the experts here can no doubt tell us) I can adjust what I mean by the term before I try to start using it during a debate.

Venial sins individually or collectively won’t get you sent to hell, but …

I appreciate your stating your view, and I can’t say that it isn’t right. Still, though, it sounds like you’re saying that we believe your soul is only in actual jeopardy of being sent to hell, if there is, in fact, a mortal sin, and that venial sins can hurt our spiritual “immune” systems but without a mortal sin present as well. If I have you right, then I agree with you, and my question becomes whether Church teaching agrees with us both.

‘By its very nature lying is to be condemned’. Sure sounds like it’s always grave matter to me.

OK, to you it sounds like it’s always grave matter. Again, I ask, since those on this thread who have promote the absolute interpretation of lying as always sinful and never acceptable, measure my thoughts against their beliefs of the Church teaching – and that we know this infallibly because the Church teaches as much, I’m trying to find out what these words mean that we’re using to describe what the Church says and how my ideas run afoul of it. I don’t want to make any assumptions we’re using the same words here, because any difference in interpretation of the laws, and we can go around like cats and dogs and never get anywhere with the discussion. http://bestsmileys.com/cats2/2.gif http://bestsmileys.com/dogs/3.gif

To me, I can hardly liken, for example, a willful abortion, with a willful lie “he went that-a-way.” I’m not saying my views are in line with Church teachings, I’m saying that my first instinct is to think a willful abortion is “more serious” than the willful lie – according to my personal opinion, which I have a right to have even if I’m wrong.

But they’re HIS rules - given to us through His Church. He wouldn’t give them to us if He weren’t worried about them! Why then would He say that someone did well who was disobedient?

I tell my kids, “do not open the door for anyone while I’m out,” and then two seconds after I walk out I realize I’d forgotten my keys, so I look in the window and wave, and knock on the door, and yell (and I know the walls are thin enough and I can see them sitting right there on the couch so I’m pretty sure they heard me) it’s "hey! It’s me! I forgot my keys! Open the door!!

Not such a contrived scenario I don’t think. Now, what iare the children to do to please me? If the children refuse to open the door, then I cannot really punish them, because in their zeal to avoid going against me, they followed my “rule” to a T. If they do open the door, though, it makes life easier for me and I will not consider them to have broken my rule because, after all, it was clearly I who was asking him to break the letter, though maybe not the spirit, of my previous rule. Moreover, even though I may never have specifically discussed this sort of situation with them prior to it actually happening, I’m hoping that what one’s mind and heart can discern of the situation will lead them to hear my current plea and recognize that the previous rule must not apply in that situation so that it was not an absolute rule to begin with.

Of course, if they open the door, I could yell, “BUSTED! I have my keys, I was just testing to see if you really love me, and clearly you don’t because you disobeyed me. You are all banished to your rooms to think about what you’ve done. You intentionally opened the door after I told you not to.” http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/11.gif

Is the latter how you perceive God to view the situation? If not, then how does the scenario under discussion differ materially from the one I just presented?

And He rewards good and faithful (in small as well as big things) servants, not just those so-called friends who treat Him like some non-judgemental buddy figure. ‘Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will be saved’. Why would He be happy with a mere friend when He wants so much more of you?gb

What does He want of us? Does he want us to act like robots? Slaves? If the robot had a “sixth sense” then I would specifically have programmed it to use that sense when applying the rules. Most robots are not complex enough to discern what to do in a new situation, the same way humans can.

Or does He want us to act like groveling servants? Unable to think on our own enough to try to understand anything He says other than as absolute in a rhetorical sense – as interpreted by the most simplistic possible meaning and application?
John 15:14-17 DR:

You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.

I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.

You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that you love one another.

So are you saying it’s wrong to view my relationship with Jesus as if we were friends?

Thank you again for your time and effort at reading my stuff and replying.

Alan

 

[LilyM]

My guess is that it is the same as the “intent” necessary for grave matter to be mortal sin.

And on what do you base that guess?

In a similar fashion, I’m guessing that without such intent, one can neither commit a mortal sin nor a venial

Well, you can’t commit a mortal sin without intent, for sure. I would say, though, that, like the minor infringements of civil law I referred to, one probably doesn’t need positive or conscious intent to commit a venial sin, and that one can do so by being careless or reckless about whether or not one is sinning.

It sounds like you’re saying that we believe your soul is only in actual jeopardy of being sent to hell, if there is, in fact, a mortal sin, and that venial sins can hurt our spiritual “immune” systems but without a mortal sin present as well. If I have you right, then I agree with you, and my question becomes whether Church teaching agrees with us both.

From the Catechism, with my emphases and comment:

"1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. ***Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. *** …

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135

…

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; [including venial sin] it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

To me, I can hardly liken, for example, a willful abortion, with a willful lie “he went that-a-way.”

Well, I could hardly liken a wilful abortion to other mortal sins either, say, a wilful dwelling on lustful thoughts or a wilful skipping of Mass on Sunday. Even among the mortal sins there do appear to be some that are more serious than others. But in terms of whether something is mortal or not, that’s neither here nor there.

A bullet might be a more or less painful or quick way to die than, say, poison, a knife or jumping off a bridge, but all will effectively kill you nonetheless, and so all can rightly be described as ‘mortal’ (deadly).

I tell my kids, “do not open the door for anyone while I’m out,” and then two seconds after I walk out I realize I’d forgotten my keys, so I look in the window and wave, and knock on the door, and yell (and I know the walls are thin enough and I can see them sitting right there on the couch so I’m pretty sure they heard me) it’s "hey! It’s me! I forgot my keys! Open the door!!

Now, what iare the children to do to please me? If the children refuse to open the door, then I cannot really punish them, because in their zeal to avoid going against me, they followed my “rule” to a T. If they do open the door, though, it makes life easier for me and I will not consider them to have broken my rule because, after all, it was clearly I who was asking him to break the letter, though maybe not the spirit, of my previous rule.

Moreover, even though I may never have specifically discussed this sort of situation with them prior to it actually happening, I’m hoping that what one’s mind and heart can discern of the situation will lead them to hear my current plea and recognize that the previous rule must not apply in that situation so that it was not an absolute rule to begin with.

The crucial difference is that you, being human and fallible, didn’t consider beforehand possible scenarios in which your children might be required to open the door and so break the rule. So your formulation of the rule, ‘don’t open the door to anyone’, was flawed and fallible and didn’t truly express what you meant by it. And if you didn’t specifically discuss exceptions with your children, that’s again, because being human and fallible you didn’t foresee there being any need to.

God makes no such mistakes or errors when He formulates His rules, and He has spent every minute of the last 2,000 years discussing with us, by way of a constant stream of Church teaching, possible nuances and practical applications of each and every one of His rules. So we KNOW which are meant to be hard and fast and which not. We aren’t left in darkness, not really.

 

[LilyM]

Is the latter how you perceive God to view the situation? If not, then how does the scenario under discussion differ materially from the one I just presented?

What does He want of us? Does he want us to act like robots? Slaves?

Or does He want us to act like groveling servants? Unable to think on our own enough to try to understand anything He says other than as absolute in a rhetorical sense – as interpreted by the most simplistic possible meaning and application?

Job was not a grovelling servant by any means, nor was Moses, nor Abraham. All had a very robust, healthy, thoughtful relationship with God. On occasion they bargained with Him, complained to Him and whatnot. But all excelled in the virtue of obedience even when it must have gone entirely against their natural inclinations.

Think of Moses being sent back back time and again to Pharoah who time and again refused to listen to him, or time and time again giving God’s law to the people of Israel who time and time again refused to obey. Think of Job patiently bearing his sufferings when a lesser man would have fallen into despair. Think of Abraham leaving Ur for an unknown land, or preparing to sacrifice Isaac his beloved son.

So are you saying it’s wrong to view my relationship with Jesus as if we were friends?

Well, it’s wrong to ONLY view your relationship as if it were a friendship and in no other light. Jesus had many many parables and sayings where He likened His people to servants - good and faithful, bad, clever, stupid and so on. There’s no shame or dishonour in being a servant of God - Paul goes further and calls himself a slave, not just a servant. There is nothing wrong in bearing such a name or having such an image of yourself.

Thank you again for your time and effort at reading my stuff and replying.

You’re welcome. It’s good for me - makes me think about exactly what I believe and why.

 

[dskysmine]

I asked this question in another thread but not many people responded. Maybe you guys can help me.

If lying is never acceptable what about the game “Two truths one lie”?
Is it sinful?

What about lying on a test? A teacher can make true and false statements in a test so that we correct the false ones. Is that sinful?

What about using metaphors and not being consistent, especially in the artistic world. We can many times express things that are not coherent with reality. Is that sinful?

Do you lie when you are purposely not exact like for example telling the time to someone?

These are a few of the questions I have in mind when thinking about what lying implies.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What if you find a ticking bomb, and pull the fire alarm to evacuate the building? Is that a sinful lie? There is no fire, but you intentionally made everybody think there was.

Absolute means absolute.

Alan

 

[dranzal]

To clarify:

While I might not *think *that the lie to the Nazi would ultimately be viewed as mortal and land me in hell, that *opinion *can only be a result of presuming God’s mercy.

Without presuming God’s mercy, a lie is a lie.

The same goes for “innocents” who die without baptism. “What happens to the souls on innocent fetuses who are miscarried, aborted, stillborn, etc? To the young whose parents are not members of a faith which believes in early baptism? To good people who haven’t adequately heard the Good News?”

For these we are called to pray for God’s mercy. The implication is that these would all, without God’s mercy, qualify for Hell because they have not been baptized. We pray for it and hope for it, but should not presume it.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

“Thou shalt not steal” – God
“But my children and I hadn’t eaten in three days and that loaf of bread was just sitting there in the store…”

Again, we can pray for God’s mercy, but theft is theft. A lie is a lie.

Now, I am human and cannot say what I would do if my children were starving or if a killer were at my door. I have responded, “I’m fine.” many times to the question, “How are you doing?” I did, at least for my first three, encourage the Santa myth, though I explained to them that Santa is, indeed, real, but not the reindeer, north pole, elves, etc.

It’s interesting that we are having this discussion during Lent–a season which opens with the Gospel about the temptation of Christ. Jesus’ responses to the tempter are firm and consistent.

 

[dskysmine]

What if you find a ticking bomb, and pull the fire alarm to evacuate the building? Is that a sinful lie? There is no fire, but you intentionally made everybody think there was.

Absolute means absolute.

Alan

Most “fire alarms” “are intended to notify the building occupants to evacuate in the event of a fire or other emergency”, not exclusively fire, fire is just the most common emergency.

 

[Robertanthony]

Whatever fire alarms are intended for, when I hear one I think it’s either a fire, smoke indicating a fire, or nobody alerted me that there was a fake alarm for everybody to rehearse getting out of the building safely. It’s safe to say that most people assume fire alarms=something related to fire. So if you don’t wanna deceive me into thinking there’s a fire going on when really it’s only a bomb, please don’t pull that alarm

 

[mosher]

I apologize in advance for the length of this discussion. It may go on for a couple of postings.

@ Alan, et al.

Based on what has now been said I think it may be important to address some things. The question was asked whether lying is a mortal sin or not. So, in the examples that we have been giving it may be important to examine another part of Aquinas’ examination of lying.

Aquinas’ divisions of falsehood

The whole issue on false speech and actions comes in the context of two virtues 1) truth which is united to justice and 2) prudence. Before we even get to this vices against prudence it might be important to see the divisions made with respect to the virtue of truth.

The first division made are untruths that are vicious and those that are not. Those that are not vicious are things like having an opinion about something that is false but you think it is true. Another type of falsehood that is not vicious is acting. Both of these lack the specific difference of ‘intent to deceive’ so they don’t qualify as lying or dissembling and hypocrisy. These latter three are the general categories of vicious actions against the virtue of truth.

Three types of lying

Now, with respect to the virtue of truth, lying is broken into three types. 1) jocose, 2) officious, and 3) mischievous. The three are divided based upon their end. Jocose lying is directed some pleasure, officious lying is directed to utility, and mischievous lying is directed to harming another. The last one is obviously evil and a mortal sin because it includes the added characteristic of malice, i.e., the desire to harm another. The other two considered in themselves are not mortal sins (they can become mortal if some other grave characteristic is added to them). Jocose lying is a type of joking that uses falsehood for worldly pleasure. Officious lying is the one that we have been considering.

The type of lying we have been considering

Officious lying is the type of deliberate speaking of an untruth that is directed to the good of another. Thomas is clear that because of the end of the agent, i.e., the desiring of some good for another, this type of lying does not destroy charity. He actually address the specific case of lying to save the life of another and finds it to be unlawful. Now, it is not so much important for us to address his conclusion but to understand why he comes to that conclusion (and Augustine as well).

 

[mosher]

(cont.)

Brief explanation of the process involved in a human act:

What is important here is an understanding of all that is involved in a human act. When we perform any voluntary action there is a process that we go through. 1) understanding, 2) delight, 3) intention, 4) deliberation, 5) consent, 6) choice, 7) command, 8) use. So, in other words when we are confronted with a situation where we must act we go through this process. 1) we consider what is a possible goal/end, 2) we then desire the possible end, 3) we resolve to accomplish the goal/end, 4) we consider available means to achieve the goal/end, 5) we consent to a specific means, 6) we then set the means into motion, 7) then we direct our powers (internal and external) to perform the means, 8) finally we perform the means so that we can attain our desired goal/end.

End of the Agent as distinct from the End of the Act

The reason why I provided the proceeding is so I could try to show what Aquinas is considering and what he is not considering when he is determining what makes a particular act good or not. In the process of the human act there are two different ends that must be considered. 1) the end of the Agent and 2) the end of the act. So let me restate the description of an officious lie:

The speaking of a falsehood with the intention to deceive for the sake of some good of another.

This description provides us with the end of the agent, i.e., ‘some good of another’. This corresponds to the intention of the agent. The agent intends for some good to come from whatever action he chooses. This is a good thing. But the description also provides us with the more limited end of the act. This is the end of the specific means that is chosen to achieve the agent’s intended good end. This is a separate consideration than the end of the agent. Most discussion (including the one here) seems to conflate these two ends. In a sense, one is the overall intention and the other is a consideration of the ‘terminus’ or end of the means chosen. In the description we see that the end of the means chosen, namely, ‘speaking a falsehood’, is the ‘intention to deceive’.

Means and Ends

Another confusion is with the interpretation of the statement, “the ends don’t justify the means.” We forget that there are two ends that are occurring in any human act, the end of the agent and the end of the act/means. The statement is specifically concerned with the notion that a good end of an agent does not make the means chosen to achieve that end good. This is because each item, the end of the agent, and the means chosen are only parts of the whole human act. For a human act to be good/virtuous then each of the 8 parts of the human act must also be good, but if one of the 8 parts is bad then the whole human act is bad/vicious. This seems to be where the problem usually rests in moral discussions.

 

[mosher]

(cont.)

The Good of the act

When Aquinas is considering lying he is considering as if it were a means chosen in a human act. So, he is not concerned so much with the ‘end of the agent’ but with the end of lying as a means. This is why he has to figure out which virtue it is related to and what is its genus and what are its parts, etc. He needs to see how lying fits into the structure of the natural order. His conclusion is essentially saying that lying is a perversion of the natural order as created by God because of the corresponding virtue with which it is related, viz., truth. Recall that he is also doing this analysis because one of the major purposes of the Summa Theologiae is to assist Confessors in their ministry so that they can be the most effective confessors possible. So, if truth is a perfection of nature then lying is a distortion, to some degree, of that perfection. Sin, is simply choosing the lesser good. So, in lying a person is deliberately choosing a distortion instead of the perfection that he ought to have chosen.

Where the problem comes is when we combine this with a good end. It seems that our inclination, in the modern world, is to say that the good end that the agent intends trumps any of the possible evils that may be present in any of the other aspects of the human act. However, we must remember that the intended good (the end of the agent) is not guaranteed by the means that we choose. The technical language for this is that there is no necessary relationship between the means chosen and the intended end. Because there is a lack of a direct and necessary relationship between the means chosen and the end of the agent the good end does not effect the moral quality of the means chosen to achieve that end. So, assuming that all the other parts of the human act are good and the means chosen is an evil (a distortion of some perfection) then when the whole action is considered we are left with the evil caused by the means. In other words, the net result of the whole human act is that we have caused some evil in the world.

The good, neutral, and the bad

Where many people have a problem with this is with this final analysis. Many modern people would say something like, “well there are 7 good and 1 evil so the net result should be 6 goods.” But this is predicated upon a poor understanding of nature, and its relation to the good. In our modern era we tend to think of nature as neutral. However, this is not the way the ancients, or us as Catholics view the world. The ancients were good metaphysicians and knew that being was good and any distortion or deprivation of nature was bad/evil. As Catholics we can accept this nor not, however, what we need to accept is what Scripture tells us about creation and Scripture tells us that it is good. So, in effect, if we wanted to quantify the issue we could say that nature does not have a value of 0, rather its value is some positive number. Now, as free agents we can chose to cause evil which is a distortion of some perfection, i.e., it is a deprivation of some good. So, when we choose evil we subtract from the good in nature. However, when we act rightly we do not add, properly speaking, to nature. Rather, the natural state of our actions should be harmonious with the good. Thus, when we act rightly we don’t do something positive, with respect to nature, rather, we act the way we are supposed to act. Good actions are the norm not something over and above what is natural. This is why the the one evil in the parts of the human act render the whole human act bad to some degree.

Surprisingly this is in some ways an over simplification. But I honor of the Holy See releasing a new document on the renewal of philosophical studies I thought it was an opportune time to try to explain the “nuts and bolts” of this whole issue. I apologize for the damage your eyes may experience from reading all of this.

 

[dskysmine]

(cont.)

The Good of the act

When Aquinas is considering lying he is considering as if it were a means chosen in a human act. So, he is not concerned so much with the ‘end of the agent’ but with the end of lying as a means. This is why he has to figure out which virtue it is related to and what is its genus and what are its parts, etc. He needs to see how lying fits into the structure of the natural order. His conclusion is essentially saying that lying is a perversion of the natural order as created by God because of the corresponding virtue with which it is related, viz., truth. Recall that he is also doing this analysis because one of the major purposes of the Summa Theologiae is to assist Confessors in their ministry so that they can be the most effective confessors possible. So, if truth is a perfection of nature then lying is a distortion, to some degree, of that perfection. Sin, is simply choosing the lesser good. So, in lying a person is deliberately choosing a distortion instead of the perfection that he ought to have chosen.

Where the problem comes is when we combine this with a good end. It seems that our inclination, in the modern world, is to say that the good end that the agent intends trumps any of the possible evils that may be present in any of the other aspects of the human act. However, we must remember that the intended good (the end of the agent) is not guaranteed by the means that we choose. The technical language for this is that there is no necessary relationship between the means chosen and the intended end. Because there is a lack of a direct and necessary relationship between the means chosen and the end of the agent the good end does not effect the moral quality of the means chosen to achieve that end. So, assuming that all the other parts of the human act are good and the means chosen is an evil (a distortion of some perfection) then when the whole action is considered we are left with the evil caused by the means. In other words, the net result of the whole human act is that we have caused some evil in the world.

The good, neutral, and the bad

Where many people have a problem with this is with this final analysis. Many modern people would say something like, “well there are 7 good and 1 evil so the net result should be 6 goods.” But this is predicated upon a poor understanding of nature, and its relation to the good. In our modern era we tend to think of nature as neutral. However, this is not the way the ancients, or us as Catholics view the world. The ancients were good metaphysicians and knew that being was good and any distortion or deprivation of nature was bad/evil. As Catholics we can accept this nor not, however, what we need to accept is what Scripture tells us about creation and Scripture tells us that it is good. So, in effect, if we wanted to quantify the issue we could say that nature does not have a value of 0, rather its value is some positive number. Now, as free agents we can chose to cause evil which is a distortion of some perfection, i.e., it is a deprivation of some good. So, when we choose evil we subtract from the good in nature. However, when we act rightly we do not add, properly speaking, to nature. Rather, the natural state of our actions should be harmonious with the good. Thus, when we act rightly we don’t do something positive, with respect to nature, rather, we act the way we are supposed to act. Good actions are the norm not something over and above what is natural. This is why the the one evil in the parts of the human act render the whole human act bad to some degree.

Surprisingly this is in some ways an over simplification. But I honor of the Holy See releasing a new document on the renewal of philosophical studies I thought it was an opportune time to try to explain the “nuts and bolts” of this whole issue. I apologize for the damage your eyes may experience from reading all of this.

There are choices and actions that will always result in one evil being perpetrated. You can’t say that every single action we do has to be perfect because we know our actions do not resolve in a vaccuum. I can choose to lie to a Nazi who asks me if there are Jews hiding in my house, which is an evil to the Nazi, or I can tell him the truth and he kills the Jews, which is an evil to the Jews. (At least that much can be expected…)
You can say that I don’t know if the Nazi will really kill the Jews, but then again I can ask you what is the “evil” in saying a lie about an information that he won’t use.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think the emphasis on competing goods in the Nazis looking for Jews question is a distraction. You don’t have to resort to “lesser evil” arguments to justify speaking a falsehood in this case.

The fact that there are some Jews that the Nazis could find is not a good for anyone. It is certainly not a good for the Jews. And it is not even a good for the Nazis who are asking you the question. In fact, knowing that practical bit of data would more likely act to the Nazis eventual damnation. The real truth is that they should not be killing Jews. So if you want to uphold the truth, that is the truth you ought to be focused on.

According to the Catechism, we have no duty to reveal a truth to one who does not have the right to that truth. That seems to be well accepted. The dispute comes over whether or not this implies the right to actively speak falsely in order to hide that truth. Some have suggested that the only completely moral thing to do would be to keep silent. The trouble is, remaining silent in this example communicates the same truth as saying “yes, they are here”. Deciding whether someone is lying in a moral sense does not depend on whether they moved their lip, noded, or wrote an e-mail.

A lot has been made about the so-called “removal” of the “right to know” criterion from the Catechism. In fact it was removed from 2483, but it remains in 2489 and is strongly hinted at in 2488. It seems more likely that the removal from 2483 was more for change in emphasis than for a change in underlying theology. After all, the point is more properly made in 2489. You can still find both versions on-line in the Vatican archives.

So I would like to see someone reconcile the position that all speaking of falsehoods is wrong at all times with 2488 and 2489 from the Catechism.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So I would like to see someone reconcile the position that all speaking of falsehoods is wrong at all times with 2488 and 2489 from the Catechism.

Let’s focus on one sentence of those references.
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.

I did not capitalize LANGUAGE; it was like that in the CCC.

Let’s look at this part: “… for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet LANGUAGE.”

What is implied by the word OR in this case? To mean it means one of two things that are not the same.

So whatever they mean by discreet “language,” we can conclude from the context that it a) is not the same thing as staying silent, and b) does not reveal the truth.

In other words, you may say something that seems to communicate to the other person something that is not part of the truth.

Can we agree on that?

If it conveys something that is not part of the truth, then is it not intentionally deceptive, and therefore a sinful lie?

Or is the CCC telling us we must sin at times? That’s OK with me, because I’m not afraid of being called a “relativist,” if that’s what they call my belief about how the Lord would have us act. Have it your way: is deception always wrong, or is the CCC leading us astray?

Or are we so convinced a lie is unconditionally sinful and unacceptable that we are inclined to have some bias in our reading of the Bible or the CCC?

Are we letting ourselves be changed by the Truth, or do we always insist we view “Truth” based on what we already believe to be the case?

I’m thinking of a prayer, but I have no intention of saying it in earnest. “Lord, thank you for the knowledge and wisdom you have given me. Please protect me against influences that may add to or change my understanding, because I am confident that I know all You wish for me to know on this particular subject.”

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

Sorry I’ve been away. Busy with school work.

So, let me first clear up a problem here. The traditional position on lying has been characterized as a type of legalism that is opposed to the Christian dispensation. This would be true if the statement “it is never permissible to lie” was a norm derived from human positive law. However this is not the case. The argument is rooted in the natural moral law which has God as its author. This point may be more important than I have considered in the past. Perhaps this is because many people see the moral law is something that is imposed from outside by some agent. However, this is not the classical, i.e., Catholic, way of understanding morality. Something is only a valid moral norm if it is consistent with the Natural Moral Law (which is a function of the way the world is), and Divine Law. These immutable “laws” are not imposed from without but are functions of the way that existence is and the way that God is.

This is important because, I think, we have been looking at the notion of lying as if it were simply incorrect information. This is only part of the issue. The more important issue is the positive notion. What is truth? First we have to understand what truth is so that we can understand what violations against truth are. But, we can’t understand truth unless we understand Truth. What I mean by this is that ‘true speaking/acting/etc.’ is rooted in and inseparable from ‘true being’.

So, we have to step back, first and see what a violation of a moral norm actually is. The violation of a moral norm is not a detached ethereal thing. Rather, it is an act of violence against the natural order. Why? Simply because, authentic moral norms are derived from the natural order. This is very different than, say, American Law which is arbitrary. It does not root itself in the natures of things.

In this way we begin to see what is so bad about immoral actions (or sins as we like to call them). Each immoral action is one that goes against the intended structure of reality as God has designed it. If we don’t understand this basic reality then we can’t make any sense out of Original Sin. If the violation of moral norms was not an ontological problem then Adam’s sin could not have effected both all of creation and all of his children. This is also why no sins are truly private. Each immoral act effects the world in which we live.

So, hopefully we can begin to see that speaking truth is rooted in being true and that if we speak falsely then we are doing violence to the very being of our person but also to the very being (the very existence) of the person to whom we lie. This is what underlies authentic Catholic moral deliberation. There is an intrinsic link between ‘acting’ and ‘being’. Perhaps the best way to put it is that when we act contrary to nature we deprive it of a perfection that it is due. The result of this deprivation is that more and more deprivation enters into the world because repairing the deprivation becomes more and more difficult. This is why ‘societal sins’ are nearly impossible for a particular society to detect. This just might be the reason why we are having such a bad time with this issue. Lying is such a part of everyone’s day to day life and the functioning of our very State that we can’t conceive of a world where lying would not be permissible in some way.

A good example was provided above. A husband telling his wife that what she is wearing looks good (or makes her look good) thought it doesn’t in order to “keep the peace.” This is satirized all the time. It is considered permissible. However, I would argue that it is a horrible thing to do to your wife. You are letting her go out in public to be ridiculed and laughed at by a lot of people just to preserve your own piece of emotional happiness. This is not a virtue, rather, it is the vice of cowardice which leads to the commission of the vice of lying. If the wife isn’t open to her husband being honest with her then she has succumbed to, at least, the vice of vanity but also the vice of vainglory. I mean, how many sins are committed in that single moment so one person can feel emotionally secure. Such actions are not Christian, they are Pagan - pure and simple; and not even good Pagan behavior.

The point is, we must first begin with the nature of Truth before we can even know why lying is always evil.

But the natural law still begs the question: Is there any situation whereby one may tell an untruth and it not be a sin, ergo, a lie? The purpose or nature of the natural law is that it serves the moral good and justice. How is cooperating with murderers who are about to murder our brothers in Christ serving the moral good and justice? Telling an untruth in this situation does not compromise good. It combats evil by an act of good (love).

Reading such long posts are getting very time consuming.

 

[mosher]

There are choices and actions that will always result in one evil being perpetrated. You can’t say that every single action we do has to be perfect because we know our actions do not resolve in a vaccuum. I can choose to lie to a Nazi who asks me if there are Jews hiding in my house, which is an evil to the Nazi, or I can tell him the truth and he kills the Jews, which is an evil to the Jews. (At least that much can be expected…)
You can say that I don’t know if the Nazi will really kill the Jews, but then again I can ask you what is the “evil” in saying a lie about an information that he won’t use.

You have missed the point. It is not an evil ‘to anybody’. The reference to a subject is not what determines the status of an act as being good or evil. It is evil because of its reference to the virtue of truth.

It is basic Moral Theology that if any evil adheres to a Human Act then the whole act is itself evil. This is, third grade catechesis level stuff.

 

[mosher]

I think the emphasis on competing goods in the Nazis looking for Jews question is a distraction. You don’t have to resort to “lesser evil” arguments to justify speaking a falsehood in this case.

The fact that there are some Jews that the Nazis could find is not a good for anyone. It is certainly not a good for the Jews. And it is not even a good for the Nazis who are asking you the question. In fact, knowing that practical bit of data would more likely act to the Nazis eventual damnation. The real truth is that they should not be killing Jews. So if you want to uphold the truth, that is the truth you ought to be focused on.

According to the Catechism, we have no duty to reveal a truth to one who does not have the right to that truth. That seems to be well accepted. The dispute comes over whether or not this implies the right to actively speak falsely in order to hide that truth. Some have suggested that the only completely moral thing to do would be to keep silent. The trouble is, remaining silent in this example communicates the same truth as saying “yes, they are here”. Deciding whether someone is lying in a moral sense does not depend on whether they moved their lip, noded, or wrote an e-mail.

A lot has been made about the so-called “removal” of the “right to know” criterion from the Catechism. In fact it was removed from 2483, but it remains in 2489 and is strongly hinted at in 2488. It seems more likely that the removal from 2483 was more for change in emphasis than for a change in underlying theology. After all, the point is more properly made in 2489. You can still find both versions on-line in the Vatican archives.

So I would like to see someone reconcile the position that all speaking of falsehoods is wrong at all times with 2488 and 2489 from the Catechism.

One cannot simply focus on one truth to the exclusion of other truths. The virtue is unified and therefore requires a unified response. As I said in my most previous post the reference to agents and their subjective good is not what determines the quality of an act. Rather, it is the acts relation to nature, as such, that determines is quality.

 

[FNDRB58]

You have missed the point. It is not an evil ‘to anybody’. The reference to a subject is not what determines the status of an act as being good or evil. It is evil because of its reference to the virtue of truth.

It is basic Moral Theology that if any evil adheres to a Human Act then the whole act is itself evil. This is, third grade catechesis level stuff.

But you are presuming that lying is an evil. We all know it is by definition. But your presumption that it qualifies as a sinful lie is the question at hand. No one is presuming that an act of evil is allowable in certain circumstances. Sin is sin. What I for one am asserting is that telling an untruth in the Nazi example does not fit the definition of a lie (sinful) and therefore is not a lie, but a telling of an untruth that is not sinful. If you are using the term lie to mean sinful then telling an untruth in the Nazi example does not meet the requirements.