Lying to save lives

[camerong]

My brother, a Muslim, told me a story that I thought might lead to an interesting discussion. He said that there were Mosques and Churches in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. He said that there were people hiding in these Churches and Mosques to avoid being slaughtered. When the militia approached the Church and asked if anyone was hiding inside, the nuns, not wishing to lie, said that there were, and the people inside were slaughtered. The Imams manning the Mosques, however, lied about anyone hiding inside, and thus spared a number of lives.

Assuming this is true, and assuming they could have lied and spared the lives of the people in the Church, did the nuns do the right thing?

 

[1ke]

I’d suggest studying the concept in moral theology known as mental reservation:

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

 

[fermat]

As far as I know, religious orders are not required to take a vow against lying if faced with such a situation. I would -]ask/-] demand proof of something so outrageous.

 

[camerong]

I’d suggest studying the concept in moral theology known as mental reservation:

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

So the nuns should have–and were allowed by Catholic morality–told the militia that no one was in the Church, but inwardly have thought that this really meant that no one was in the Church who wished to see the attackers? This is an interesting idea, but it pretty much means that one can never lie as long as one is mentally crossing one’s fingers, so to speak. Under such an idea, St. Thomas Moore could have given his consent to King Henry the 8th’s divorce, and would have been appropriate in doing so, as long as he thought to himself that he really didn’t mean it. Am I correctly interpreting this idea?

 

[camerong]

As far as I know, religious orders are not required to take a vow against lying if faced with such a situation. I would -]ask/-] demand proof of something so outrageous.

Its certainly plausible that the nun’s could have believed this, even mistakenly so. Either way, I’m not terribly concerned with the veracity of the story, but with the moral theology underlying it.

 

[1ke]

So the nuns should have–and were allowed by Catholic morality–told the militia that no one was in the Church, but inwardly have thought that this really meant that no one was in the Church who wished to see the attackers?

Yes, that is correct.

Under such an idea, St. Thomas Moore could have given his consent to King Henry the 8th’s divorce, and would have been appropriate in doing so, as long as he thought to himself that he really didn’t mean it. Am I correctly interpreting this idea?

No, this would be strict mental reservation which has been condemned.

 

[Seatuck]

The nuns were not morally obliged to lie . But they could have lied without it being a mortal sin.

 

[surritter]

I always thought that Peter sinned when he denied Jesus. Now I learn that we have theological nuances that might make it look like his denial was not a sin? (I realize it was probably not a mortal sin due to the threat on his life, but depending on his phrasing, he could be off the hook due to this “wide mental reservation.”)

I don’t think we should be playing word games. To lie is a sin, and the nuns did the right thing. The consequences of their righteous actions will be handled by God in His own way – look what He did with the cross.

 

[LilyM]

I have a much narrower view of when outright lying is acceptable (if ever) than some, but a correspondingly wider view than some of half-truths (ie not telling the whole truth, as opposed to telling an outright falsehood) being acceptable, at least in some situations.

In a case such as that of the nuns, I’d say to lie would have been a sin, but only a very venial one due to the duress they were under at the time.

I think the nuns should simply have kept silence, however, rather than fessing up. What did they achieve by owning that they had people hidden?

We are obliged at times to be discreet in our speech where this is necessary, per the Catechism. To my mind this means keeping silence if no other option is available. And in a life-or-death case you can bet I’d be keeping discreet silence even if I myself were killed for it.

 

[flyingfish]

If someone doesn’t have a right to know something, not giving them the information is not a lie. The kind of lying that’s grave matter, is bearing false witness, like testifying in a trial that someone committed a crime when they didn’t, or otherwise causing serious harm to someone with untruths.

This story smells like BS anyway, I guess these murderous militia just asked the nuns if there was someone in the church, they weren’t going to check themselves anyway? It just doesn’t sound right.

If you’re hiding innocents, the moral duty is to lie to protect them.

 

[Jermosh]

Sounds almost akin to a Chick Tract.

 

[surritter]

If you’re hiding innocents, the moral duty is to lie to protect them.

I understand this sentiment, but then what else could you do to protect them? If lying is OK because of the circumstances, then are other objective sins acceptable? I wonder if this could become a slippery slope.

 

[LilyM]

If you’re hiding innocents, the moral duty is to lie to protect them.

Jesus is Truth incarnate, any lie is an offence against that truth. For that reason alone I think it cannot possibly ever be a moral duty to lie.

From the CCC: “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.”

I do not think it can ever be a moral duty to do something that by its very nature is to be condemned. Do you have any Magisterial teaching saying that it is a *moral duty * (which is much more than saying it may be permissible) to lie - to tell a falsehood?

Of course there are times where one who does lie is practically or actually blameless subjectively. That is not the same thing as saying one has a moral duty to lie.

 

[flyingfish]

I understand this sentiment, but then what else could you do to protect them? If lying is OK because of the circumstances, then are other objective sins acceptable? I wonder if this could become a slippery slope.

Jesus is Truth incarnate, any lie is an offence against that truth. For that reason alone I think it cannot possibly ever be a moral duty to lie.

From the CCC: “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.”

I do not think it can ever be a moral duty to do something that by its very nature is to be condemned. Do you have any Magisterial teaching saying that it is a *moral duty * (which is much more than saying it may be permissible) to lie - to tell a falsehood?

Of course there are times where one who does lie is practically or actually blameless subjectively. That is not the same thing as saying one has a moral duty to lie.

I don’t have a Church teaching that says this, but there are situations where you have to make the best available choice.

In this case the best available choice is to lie to protect the innocents, rather than give them away and have them get slaughtered. Even if it’s a (venial) sin to tell the untruth, it’s a far greater sin to let innocent people get murdered.

Kind of like if you’re walking by and watch a child drowning, it’s a sin not to jump in to save the child. What if there was some dude standing beside a lake who told you that you could only jump if you told him your name was Betty? What do you do? Is it worse to lie and say your name is Betty or let the child drown?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t have a Church teaching that says this, but there are situations where you have to make the best available choice.

In this case the best available choice is to lie to protect the innocents, rather than give them away and have them get slaughtered. Even if it’s a (venial) sin to tell the untruth, it’s a far greater sin to let innocent people get murdered.

Kind of like if you’re walking by and watch a child drowning, it’s a sin not to jump in to save the child. What if there was some dude standing beside a lake who told you that you could only jump if you told him your name was Betty? What do you do? Is it worse to lie and say your name is Betty or let the child drown?

It’s not a question of choosing the worse over the lesser sin. The fact that two sins are open to you and one is lesser still doesn’t make it your moral DUTY to sin in the lesser or the greater way - in this case to lie and say your name is Betty or else let the child drown. It’s never a moral duty to sin at all. The opposite, the one moral duty is to avoid ALL sin.

There is never a circumstance where God will morally require us to lie, as all lies are offences against Him, and God will never morally require even the tiniest offence of us.

Let’s look at your example - why lie and say ‘my name is Betty’? If the dude in your example is crazy enough to say that, he’s crazy enough that he’ll probably then proceed to ask you to prove it, or come up with some new equally crazy restriction or something. it’s an excellent bet your lying will be for naught in the end.

Far better is to refuse to play these devil’s games, refuse to assume your only choices can be evils - for that idea is surely of the devil. Choose to stay true and find another way. Say ‘my name isn’t Betty but I must save that child’. And then dive in.

If he then tries anything further to prevent you, the only sin will be his in hindering you, not yours, not for lying or any other reason.

Look, we can’t control the fact that other people will want us to sin, but we can refuse to be sucked into the false idea that sin or evil is EVER our only option. And we can try our utmost to do the right thing anyway - and are every bit as likely to be successful.

 

[Jermosh]

SO who lied to Abraham that his son was going to be slaughter?

 

[flyingfish]

It’s not a question of choosing the worse over the lesser sin. The fact that two sins are open to you and one is lesser still doesn’t make it your moral DUTY to sin in the lesser or the greater way - in this case to lie and say your name is Betty or else let the child drown. It’s never a moral duty to sin at all. The opposite, the one moral duty is to avoid ALL sin.

There is never a circumstance where God will morally require us to lie, as all lies are offences against Him, and God will never morally require even the tiniest offence of us.

Let’s look at your example - why lie and say ‘my name is Betty’? If the dude in your example is crazy enough to say that, he’s crazy enough that he’ll probably then proceed to ask you to prove it, or come up with some new equally crazy restriction or something. it’s an excellent bet your lying will be for naught in the end.

Far better is to refuse to play these devil’s games, refuse to assume your only choices can be evils - for that idea is surely of the devil. Choose to stay true and find another way. Say ‘my name isn’t Betty but I must save that child’. And then dive in.

If he then tries anything further to prevent you, the only sin will be his in hindering you, not yours, not for lying or any other reason.

Look, we can’t control the fact that other people will want us to sin, but we can refuse to be sucked into the false idea that sin or evil is EVER our only option. And we can try our utmost to do the right thing anyway - and are every bit as likely to be successful.

My example is obviously contrived, but sometimes the only options you have are both sinful. For example if you grant that lying is always sinful, then lying is sinful, but so is giving the people away to get slaughtered. (Saying nothing not necessarily an option either, since the guys might say unless you tell us there isn’t anyone, we are going to search.)

 

[tjm190]

It is a sin to deny someone something to which they are entitled- be it property, objects, or information.

If someone aims to use information to take a life, they are not entitled to it and you do not sin by lying to them. By that same token, it is morally acceptable to steal the keys from someone who would use those keys to drive drunk.

 

[LilyM]

SO who lied to Abraham that his son was going to be slaughter?

No-one. God said ‘you will offer him (Isaac) up as a holocaust (sacrificial victim)’.

Doesn’t necessarily mean Issac was required to be killed. There were and are many different types of offering, some simply a dedication of one’s life to God’s service as Samuel’s was.

Surely Isaac served God all his life, and so certainly was this kind of offering, just not the killed-and-burned kind

 

[LilyM]

It is a sin to deny someone something to which they are entitled- be it property, objects, or information.

If someone aims to use information to take a life, they are not entitled to it and you do not sin by lying to them. By that same token, it is morally acceptable to steal the keys from someone who would use those keys to drive drunk.

That’s as may be, depending on the circumstances.

‘Morally acceptable’ is a different thing entirely to saying, as the other poster is, that it is your moral DUTY to lie, cheat, steal. Moral duty means it is your obligation to do so.

And as long as there are other alternatives (for example, calling a taxi for the drunk person and physically restraining him within the bar until you can safely get him into the taxi), I wouldn’t say it was your DUTY or obligation to steal his keys.