Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[FNDRB58]

Nope. Concealing the truth is not lying because you haven’t told an untruth. You have to actually say something to say a lie. What you have done by staying silent is mental reservation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nope. Concealing the truth is not lying because you haven’t told an untruth. You have to actually say something to say a lie. What you have done by staying silent is mental reservation.

Well, you answered the easier part of his question, but what about the harder part? What do you say about Q: ‘Did you do your homework?’ A:‘What do you think?’

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The removal of that clause was deliberate. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can look up the controversies that surrounded the initial publication and then the revision of the CCC. Do the work for yourself…

If you have a point to make, you should make it. Don’t hide behind “do your homework”. Or perhaps you don’t want to make the point because then it would be easier for someone to refute it? At least provide a specific link to what you are referring to.

 

[FNDRB58]

Well, you answered the easier part of his question, but what about the harder part? What do you say about Q: ‘Did you do your homework?’ A:‘What do you think?’

He did not lie because he did not tell an untruth. He left it up to the other person to decide what the answer might be. If the other person thinks that he did his homework because he usually does then that is a presumption on his part. What I would also say was that he was just plain rude.

Easy.

 

[FNDRB58]

 

[allyl]

He did not lie because he did not tell an untruth. He left it up to the other person to decide what the answer might be. If the other person thinks that he did his homework because he usually does then that is a presumption on his part. What I would also say was that he was just plain rude.

Easy.

The more I’m on this forum, the more the regional differences in the way that Catholicism/Christianity is taught becomes clear to me.

 

[FNDRB58]

The more I’m on this forum, the more the regional differences in the way that Catholicism/Christianity is taught becomes clear to me.

Feel free to explain.

 

[mosher]

mosher -

I still believe you have it wrong and this is why and will clear it up:

You say that Sabbath rest is a type of right worship. You are correct.
But Sabbath rest is ALSO a type of worship. Correct?
And right worship is ALSO a type of worship. Correct?

worship - working in violation of Sabbath is the correct relationship because the genus is generic whereas you added the adjective “right” to qualify the worship, thus making it also a type. So you haven’t quite stripped it down enough. Worship is as generic as killing is generic as telling an untruth is generic. Do you understand?

You see, we can’t only say this is to that as this is to that. The genuses also have to match up with each other and the speces have to match up with each other. The other genuses are not qualified as right killing or right lying.

By your logic and to be consistent, you must also then say that murder is a type of right killing:

right worship - Sabbath rest
right killing - murder
right telling of an untruth - lying

…which doesn’t work. You can’t add an adjective in front of the genus if you don’t do the same with the other genuses. If you add an adjective to all of them then you are tearing up the whole comparison as there are no generic genuses.

You also say Sabbath rest when it should be working in violation of because that would match up with killing and lying whereas Sabbath rest does not.

I think you might be correct with the Sabbath notion. Perhaps a better analysis would be:

g1: Worship
s1: right worship
s2: wrong worship

g2: right worship
g2(s1): Sabbath rest

But the proportion between the other two holds.

Would a saint be good enough? St. Raymond…He said “if one may kill to save another then one may lie to prevent someone from being killed.” Not a doctor of the Church but a saint. That should be enough to show that we crazies who would lie to Nazis in fact make an assertion shared by prominent Catholics who are now in heaven. And there were others who shared this view. He is the first that came to mind.

No, not simply speaking. What does he mean by lying? Is he using it in a general sense as any false speaking or does he mean it in its proper sense? This is a good question to ask about any use of terminology.

 

[FNDRB58]

I think you might be correct with the Sabbath notion. Perhaps a better analysis would be:

g1: Worship
s1: right worship
s2: wrong worship

g2: right worship
g2(s1): Sabbath rest

But the proportion between the other two holds.

Yes, the other two are correct. I think we are now on the same page.

But now we fill in the s1s and s2s by the use of examples. I previously used the examples in place of the s1 and s2 as a shortcut but we can do it as you have laid out with the examples in parenthesis so we know what actions apply where…

worship (generic - no example)
right worship (no working on the Sabbath rest)
wrong worship (violation of the Sabbath rest by working)

Now that we have established the relationships, lets continue…

Let’s go back to my example of Jesus “working” on the Sabbath as this was what spurred your disapproval of the example with your explanation of genus and species.

There was a right and a wrong type of worship. The people believed that any work done on the Sabbath was wrong worship but Jesus taught them that they were not putting it into context. He showed them that the command to “not work on the Sabbath” did indeed allow for “work” if that work was an act of love. So what I have been saying is that, is it possible that you too are viewing the “no lying” command as so iron clad that perhaps an act of love (saving the Jews or saving your daughter from a murderer) might not also be an exception and thus acceptable?

Why would an act of love be an exception to the command to not work when an act of love would NOT be an exception to a command not to lie?

I would add one more thing…it has been said the we can’t lie because Jesus is Truth. I agree that Jesus is Truth but Jesus is also Love and Love is the greatest thing. You can never go wrong with an act of true love. In fact, the Bible states that the greatest act of love is giving your life for your friend. Hiding Jews from murderers is definitaley putting your life on the line for them, thus an act of love. Love conquers all as Jesus showed by his example. One cannot violate anything by doing a true act of love because one would be doing what Jesus wants from all of us.

 

[ClayPots47]

I am not commenting on any particular post, but I always understood moral theology to generally teach the following:

A strict mental reservation is a lie, and can never be justified. A broad mental reservation is morally permissible when the person seeking the information has no right to it. A common broad mental reservation is when the secretary tells a caller that “The boss is not in”, even though the boss is actually in his office at work. The statement is generally understood to mean that the boss is "Not in, to you’. Because the caller is not entitled to know if the boss is there, let alone entitled to speak with him. Plus, if the boss took every call, they might never get any actual work done. I once worked at a rectory, and my pastor would sometimes tell me to inform callers that he was not there, as he wished not to be disturbed at the time.

The correct and permissible answer to the question of Nazi’s inquiring about Jews in the house is “They are not here”. The answer that Polish Catholic social worker Irena Sendler gave while she worked with Żegota to smuggle Jewish children to safety. When asked about “Who is Zegota?”, she answered she never heard of Zegota, though she worked with them. Sendler and her helpers created over 3,000 false documents to help Jewish families. Pope John Paul II praised her efforts. Sendler was not obligated to answer the Nazis with the info they sought, she responded with broad mental reservations instead. I dare anyone to claim this woman lied and therefore sinned by what she was doing. I’m glad I don’t have to meet the standards of perfection that some of you propagate, I only have to meet God’s.

I’m so glad some of you are so perfect that you wouldn’t “lie” to save 2500 Jewish children from possible death.

Didn’t Jesus say something about “the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter”? Some of you are seriously are hung up the letter of the law, and think there is no room for debate here. You scare me! Some of you get the whole “spirit of the law” thing, thank you!

One of my favorite quote is this;

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi

As soon as I can have a sig, it’s going there.

 

[FNDRB58]

I, for one, agree with you. And I am glad you gave details about the fake passport deal.

 

[FNDRB58]

Yes, the other two are correct. I think we are now on the same page.

But now we fill in the s1s and s2s by the use of examples. I previously used the examples in place of the s1 and s2 as a shortcut but we can do it as you have laid out with the examples in parenthesis so we know what actions apply where…

worship (generic - no example)
right worship (no working on the Sabbath rest)
wrong worship (violation of the Sabbath rest by working)

Now that we have established the relationships, lets continue…

Let’s go back to my example of Jesus “working” on the Sabbath as this was what spurred your disapproval of the example with your explanation of genus and species.

There was a right and a wrong type of worship. The people believed that any work done on the Sabbath was wrong worship but Jesus taught them that they were not putting it into context. He showed them that the command to “not work on the Sabbath” did indeed allow for “work” if that work was an act of love. So what I have been saying is that, is it possible that you too are viewing the “no lying” command as so iron clad that perhaps an act of love (saving the Jews or saving your daughter from a murderer) might not also be an exception and thus acceptable?

Why would an act of love be an exception to the command to not work when an act of love would NOT be an exception to a command not to lie?

I would add one more thing…it has been said the we can’t lie because Jesus is Truth. I agree that Jesus is Truth but Jesus is also Love and Love is the greatest thing. You can never go wrong with an act of true love. In fact, the Bible states that the greatest act of love is giving your life for your friend. Hiding Jews from murderers is definitaley putting your life on the line for them, thus an act of love. Love conquers all as Jesus showed by his example. One cannot violate anything by doing a true act of love because one would be doing what Jesus wants from all of us.

 

[mosher]

Yes, the other two are correct. I think we are now on the same page.

But now we fill in the s1s and s2s by the use of examples. I previously used the examples in place of the s1 and s2 as a shortcut but we can do it as you have laid out with the examples in parenthesis so we know what actions apply where…

worship (generic - no example)
right worship (no working on the Sabbath rest)
wrong worship (violation of the Sabbath rest by working)

Now that we have established the relationships, lets continue…

Let’s go back to my example of Jesus “working” on the Sabbath as this was what spurred your disapproval of the example with your explanation of genus and species.

There was a right and a wrong type of worship. The people believed that any work done on the Sabbath was wrong worship but Jesus taught them that they were not putting it into context. He showed them that the command to “not work on the Sabbath” did indeed allow for “work” if that work was an act of love. So what I have been saying is that, is it possible that you too are viewing the “no lying” command as so iron clad that perhaps an act of love (saving the Jews or saving your daughter from a murderer) might not also be an exception and thus acceptable?

Why would an act of love be an exception to the command to not work when an act of love would NOT be an exception to a command not to lie?

I would add one more thing…it has been said the we can’t lie because Jesus is Truth. I agree that Jesus is Truth but Jesus is also Love and Love is the greatest thing. You can never go wrong with an act of true love. In fact, the Bible states that the greatest act of love is giving your life for your friend. Hiding Jews from murderers is definitaley putting your life on the line for them, thus an act of love. Love conquers all as Jesus showed by his example. One cannot violate anything by doing a true act of love because one would be doing what Jesus wants from all of us.

There is a fundamental difference between the two issue at hand. The problem centers around defining a term. With the example of Jesus we see an example of the actual Law Giver correcting an improper definition. With the example of lying we have no such direct revelation from the Law Giver, so to speak.

This is, in fact, the more interesting question. Is the definition of lying the correct definition. Nobody has addressed this issue because I don’t think that contemporary thinkers know how to do this anymore with any level of precision. This might be the reason why people with appeal to Aquinas and Augustine in this issue and show how there are exceptions. However, this type of treatment is not intellectually honest because Aquinas and Augustine are making a case for lying being an exceptionless norm. They make a good case based on the definition given. The only way I see us getting around their analysis is through making a direct challenge to their definition. But, we can’t just make the definition fit what we want it to fit. It must be a true definition.

 

[mosher]

I am not commenting on any particular post, but I always understood moral theology to generally teach the following:

A strict mental reservation is a lie, and can never be justified. A broad mental reservation is morally permissible when the person seeking the information has no right to it. A common broad mental reservation is when the secretary tells a caller that “The boss is not in”, even though the boss is actually in his office at work. The statement is generally understood to mean that the boss is "Not in, to you’. Because the caller is not entitled to know if the boss is there, let alone entitled to speak with him. Plus, if the boss took every call, they might never get any actual work done. I once worked at a rectory, and my pastor would sometimes tell me to inform callers that he was not there, as he wished not to be disturbed at the time.

The correct and permissible answer to the question of Nazi’s inquiring about Jews in the house is “They are not here”. The answer that Polish Catholic social worker Irena Sendler gave while she worked with Żegota to smuggle Jewish children to safety. When asked about “Who is Zegota?”, she answered she never heard of Zegota, though she worked with them. Sendler and her helpers created over 3,000 false documents to help Jewish families. Pope John Paul II praised her efforts. Sendler was not obligated to answer the Nazis with the info they sought, she responded with broad mental reservations instead. I dare anyone to claim this woman lied and therefore sinned by what she was doing. I’m glad I don’t have to meet the standards of perfection that some of you propagate, I only have to meet God’s.

I’m so glad some of you are so perfect that you wouldn’t “lie” to save 2500 Jewish children from possible death.

Didn’t Jesus say something about “the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter”? Some of you are seriously are hung up the letter of the law, and think there is no room for debate here. You scare me! Some of you get the whole “spirit of the law” thing, thank you!

One of my favorite quote is this;

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi

As soon as I can have a sig, it’s going there.

You are attaching two separate acts in your example. The first is mental reservation which is simply withholding information and the second is lying. The first is permissible and the second is not.

 

[Curious_Seed]

You would seriously lie to a dying friend? Would you lie to a suicidal man to save his life? What if the suicidal man finds out that you were lying, would that not even make him want to take his life more, because of your deception? If you lied to save a relationship of someone you love, then you actually don’t love the person you are in the relationship with.

Lies are done to only decive people, what good could actually come out of a lie?

Is truth to be valued?

Well, if you say sometimes.

Then, are those sometimes valid for truth all the time?

Well, if you again say sometimes.

Then, truth is not to be valued at anytime.

If truth be not valued, then lies have the same value.

If truth and lies are of equal value, then life shifts accordingly: no trust, no integrity, no love, no simplicity.

Life becomes untenably horrible: a living nightmare.

Lies corrupt the giver and the receiver.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To intend good, using tools deemed bad, is to do bad.

For Christians, the 9th Commandment of Exodus 20:16 is no lie.

 

[FNDRB58]

There is a fundamental difference between the two issue at hand. The problem centers around defining a term. With the example of Jesus we see an example of the actual Law Giver correcting an improper definition. With the example of lying we have no such direct revelation from the Law Giver, so to speak.

This is, in fact, the more interesting question. Is the definition of lying the correct definition. Nobody has addressed this issue because I don’t think that contemporary thinkers know how to do this anymore with any level of precision. This might be the reason why people with appeal to Aquinas and Augustine in this issue and show how there are exceptions. However, this type of treatment is not intellectually honest because Aquinas and Augustine are making a case for lying being an exceptionless norm. They make a good case based on the definition given. The only way I see us getting around their analysis is through making a direct challenge to their definition. But, we can’t just make the definition fit what we want it to fit. It must be a true definition.

I think the question is: What is most important… Truth, Justice, or Love? Justice and Love stand on their own. I can’t think of an extreme situation where injustice or being unloving would ever be acceptable. Whereas, being untruthful, can indeed serve a good purpose.

Certainly, in the Nazi example, one would expect a good Christian to try to honor all three. But the situation is so extreme that one of the three must be mitigated or sacrificed. If all are equal, then to not lie would serve the truth but violate justice and love. To lie would be an act of love and serve justice but not be truthful.

The Catechism says that a lie consists of speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.
This seems very simplictic to me and leaves so many questions.

There are many things we could point to where the Law Giver did not explicitly state in the written tradition. Although the Church does seem to lean toward most of Augustine’s teachings, the Catechism is not at all clear on this subject. What is clear is that almost every comment on the subject of lying from 2475 to 2489 seems to be directed towards hurting or being an injustice to your neighbor who deserves your veracity. This is the requirement which is lacking in the Nazi/murderer example. Though every human being is our neighbor, we certainly would not regard murderers searching for their next victims as deserving of the truth nor would they be hurt, nor would they be deserving of an apology.

 

[FNDRB58]

Is truth to be valued?

Well, if you say sometimes.

Then, are those sometimes valid for truth all the time?

Well, if you again say sometimes.

Then, truth is not to be valued at anytime.

If truth be not valued, then lies have the same value.

If truth and lies are of equal value, then life shifts accordingly: no trust, no integrity, no love, no simplicity.

Life becomes untenably horrible: a living nightmare.

Lies corrupt the giver and the receiver.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To intend good, using tools deemed bad, is to do bad.

For Christians, the 9th Commandment of Exodus 20:16 is no lie.

Your comments seem to be referring to lying in general, to which I agree.

But do Nazis searching for their next victims deserve our veracity?

And aren’t those hiding Jews committing an act of love instead of act of sin?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Your comments seem to be referring to lying in general, to which I agree.

But do Nazis searching for their next victims deserve our veracity?

And aren’t those hiding Jews committing an act of love instead of act of sin?

If a rapist were to call out to a woman, after having invaded her home, asking where she was, does the Ninth Commandment demand she say I’m over here?

If a Satanist, with a rifle barrel at your temple, were to ask you who is your Lord, does the Ninth Commandment demand you say Jesus?

If a Nazi, in search of Jews, were to ask a guardian if he/she knew where one might be, does the Ninth Commandment demand he/she say where one might be?

Does the Ninth Commandment subject the disciples of Christ to the deceit of demons?

Hardly.

Galileo was not under the Ninth Commandment when he told the Catholic Church the Sun rotated around the Earth.

Galileo would be under the Ninth Commandment, if he were to tell you the same.

 

[Rebax]

According to my beleif, I’m aloud to lie in three cases,

''Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).’’
^That’s a hadith.

This is something very normal, and logical, and this is something any person would do. Your intention is not to cause problems; rather your intention is to cause good and peace, only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad. If a lie could bring peace and end war, or blood-shed, or violence, would you not lie to end it and bring the peace? Only an idiot would say no.

Peace.

 

[FNDRB58]

If a rapist were to call out to a woman, after having invaded her home, asking where she was, does the Ninth Commandment demand she say I’m over here?

If a Satanist, with a rifle barrel at your temple, were to ask you who is your Lord, does the Ninth Commandment demand you say Jesus?

If a Nazi, in search of Jews, were to ask a guardian if he/she knew where one might be, does the Ninth Commandment demand he/she say where one might be?

Does the Ninth Commandment subject the disciples of Christ to the deceit of demons?

Hardly.

Galileo was not under the Ninth Commandment when he told the Catholic Church the Sun rotated around the Earth.

Galileo would be under the Ninth Commandment, if he were to tell you the same.

My position is that there are extreme circumstances that warrant the telling of an untruth. I think you misunderstood. Or perhaps I misunderstood your initial post #133 which seemed to be taking the position that all lies are sinful. You should be addressing your comments to “mosher” to whom I am debating the point. He is the absolutist. You and I are in agreement.