Lying to save lives

[nsper7]

Reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on mental reservation, I find myself even more confused. Is see little difference between wide and strict mental reservation.

Also, one could wonder if lying to save another life, even though it would be sinful, if it would be mortally sinful? After all, according to St. Thomas Aquinas and some others, only an hurtful lie, as opposed to a jocose or officious lie, is by its nature mortal. Certainly, a lie told to save another would not fall under a ‘hurtful lie’ unless the individual being saved perhaps was being justly pursued (i.e. by the police or military for having committed a serious crime or being about to or something).

 

[LilyM]

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.)

No, God NEVER puts us in a position where the only option is to sin in one fashion or the other. What kind of sick sadistic God would tell us to chop off our own hand or pluck out our own eye rather than sin, as He does, and then put us in a place where we have no option but sin? Where is your faith in God who will always provide a way out?

That’s not God, and it’s not real life either. If you go into difficult situations presuming there is a sinless and honorable way out and looking (and praying) for it you’ll always find it - at least in my 36 years of experience it’s never failed, and I’ve been in some dicey situations. The only times I’ve found ‘no option but sin’ is where I haven’t particularly looked for other options.

Take your example - the guys say ‘Unless you tell us there isn’t anyone, we are going to search’. Your response? ‘If you want to search you’ll search, even if I say what you want.’ Truthful and not giving anything away. Again, any sin is on them, it’s their choice whether to search or not, and not yours.

As I’ve said before, why are you presuming that they would take you at your word anyway even if you DID lie? No soldier worth his salt would give up a search on anyone’s say-so except their commanders.

 

[flyingfish]

Take your example - the guys say ‘Unless you tell us there isn’t anyone, we are going to search’. Your response? ‘If you want to search you’ll search, even if I say what you want.’ Truthful and not giving anything away. Again, any sin is on them, it’s their choice whether to search or not, and not yours.

So, since you don’t tell them there isn’t anyone, they search, find the people, and kill them. You failed to do a very simple action that would have saved lives. I daresay most people would say this is a sin. In this case the loss of life is far worse than telling an untruth to someone who doesn’t have the right to know that information anyway.

As I’ve said before, why are you presuming that they would take you at your word anyway even if you DID lie? No soldier worth his salt would give up a search on anyone’s say-so except their commanders.

You’re just picking at the bad example. Probably most real life situations are not going to be like contrived examples. But examples like this are created to analyze moral “edge cases” that rarely arise in real life.

It’s like those examples with a train on the tracks. The train is going straight to hit 2 people, however you have the option of moving it so that it only hits one. Do you do this? (For the sake of the example, the people are equivalent. So you don’t have 2 bums and 1 doctor, but say 3 equally skilled doctors, or 3 equal bums.)

Nazis round you up and say that unless you personally kill someone, they will kill 100 people, do you personally kill 1 to say 100? I wouldn’t be surprised if some sadistic Nazis actually did this.

Nazis round you up and ask you if your name is Betty, your name is not Betty however if you tell them that it is they will not kill anyone, if you tell the truth they will kill 100 people.

 

[LilyM]

So, since you don’t tell them there isn’t anyone, they search, find the people, and kill them. You failed to do a very simple action that would have saved lives. I daresay most people would say this is a sin. In this case the loss of life is far worse than telling an untruth to someone who doesn’t have the right to know that information anyway.

A) There is NOTHING simple about sin, even the most minor venial sin.
B) There is NOTHING simple (morally speaking) about lying - the subjects we are discussing have been debated with no definite consensus among the most astute theologians since the time of Augustine.
C) My action would NOT in any imaginable circumstances be attributed (or anything like) as saving the peoples’ lives, we are talking sick sadistic soldiers here whose promises to me or anyone else are worthless and cannot possibly be relied upon or treated as worthy of belief. Nor are we talking about some absolute moral responsibility on my part for the lives of those hiding - the soldiers and the people themselves bear at least part, if not all, of the responsibility for what happens to them.
D) I am NOT morally responsible for the soldiers’ decision to search in this case - they have moral independence and free will. I did NOT invite them to search by my action any more than Jesus invited Peter to deny Him by predicting that he would do so. Saying ‘go ahead and search, I dare you’ or the like, would’ve been an invitation, but I categorically am not saying that.

You’re just picking at the bad example. Probably most real life situations are not going to be like contrived examples. But examples like this are created to analyze moral “edge cases” that rarely arise in real life.

 

[flyingfish]

The first two examples are at least plausible. The last example, however, is more or less completely divorced from any real life situation that is either possible or potential and thus assists in analyzing nothing.

Hypotheticals are meant to prepare us to think about things that might possibly happen, not things that are so farfetched they are verging on the impossible. May as well come up with a hypothetical involving three-sided circles for all the use your last one is.

Out of curiosity, do you think then that the people who told Nazis the truth when asked if they were hiding Jews did the right thing?

 

[LilyM]

Out of curiosity, do you think then that the people who told Nazis the truth when asked if they were hiding Jews did the right thing?

You wouldn’t need to ask that question if you’d read my early comment about what the nuns did. Discretion (in the form of silence or equivocation - not lies, which no-one has any right to, even if they also have no right to the truth) would, I think, have been much the more correct course for the nuns, as I’ve already said.

That also applies, in my opinion, to those who might’ve been hiding Jews in WW2. Failing that, of course, there are still other options. It is quite permissible to physically fight off those who would search, to bribe them or whatnot.

 

[JRKH]

I wish all to consider this from Christ Himself.

“No greater Love has a man than that he lay down his life for his friends” (prarphrased)

Now let us apply this to the situation given in the OP, or to the church hiding Jews in WWII or whatever.
A person lying in such a situation, knowing that such a lie is a sin, is doing precisely what Jesus says above. He/She is putting their own life and soul on the line in order to save the life of his/her friends.
Such a person would certainly seek God’s forgiveness for such a lie and most assuredly be forgiven.

Peace
James

 

[Jermosh]

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

Valid point, I guess I was more working towards the facade of deception as pointing out or producing a good act.

 

[LilyM]

I wish all to consider this from Christ Himself.

“No greater Love has a man than that he lay down his life for his friends” (prarphrased)

Now let us apply this to the situation given in the OP, or to the church hiding Jews in WWII or whatever.
A person lying in such a situation, knowing that such a lie is a sin, is doing precisely what Jesus says above. He/She is putting their own life and soul on the line in order to save the life of his/her friends.
Such a person would certainly seek God’s forgiveness for such a lie and most assuredly be forgiven.

Peace
James

Not without considering the following - also from Christ himself. “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world (including but not limited to the lives of his friends) and lose his soul”? If we put our soul in jeopardy through sin for any consideration, then our priorities are wrong.

“Whoever does not hate his mother and father is not worthy to be my follower” (also paraphrased). So no, the lives of our loved ones, precious as they undoubtedly are, are not the be-all and end-point of our morality.

True, God will probably understand that in a moment of weakness and distraction we put the miserable hides (doomed to return to dust no matter what we do) of our fellow humans above the far more precious treasure of our immortal souls, but that’s not to say it’s the right way to set your priorities.

Many times Jesus and the Apostles could’ve made life easier for themselves or their followers by lying - and doubtless saved lives in so doing - but they never are recorded as lying for any motive whatsoever, or ever implying that it was OK to do so. What is more important than following the example they set - in this regard as so many others?

 

[flyingfish]

You wouldn’t need to ask that question if you’d read my early comment about what the nuns did. Discretion (in the form of silence or equivocation - not lies, which no-one has any right to, even if they also have no right to the truth) would, I think, have been much the more correct course for the nuns, as I’ve already said.

That also applies, in my opinion, to those who might’ve been hiding Jews in WW2. Failing that, of course, there are still other options. It is quite permissible to physically fight off those who would search, to bribe them or whatnot.

It seems like your answer to all these dilemmas is to avoid the dilemma by assuming the existence of a better “third option.”

What if that option isn’t there? What if you can’t bribe the Nazis or physically fight them off? What if you either lie or the Jews you’re hiding die (and possibly you along with them for hiding them in the first place)?

 

[surritter]

I wish all to consider this from Christ Himself.

“No greater Love has a man than that he lay down his life for his friends” (prarphrased)

Now let us apply this to the situation given in the OP, or to the church hiding Jews in WWII or whatever.
A person lying in such a situation, knowing that such a lie is a sin, is doing precisely what Jesus says above. He/She is putting their own life and soul on the line in order to save the life of his/her friends.
Such a person would certainly seek God’s forgiveness for such a lie and most assuredly be forgiven.

Peace
James

I think this teaching of Jesus has no application here. Read the lives of the saints – some of them wrote that they would rather die than commit even one venial sin. So it’s Christian to lay down your physical life for others, but to throw away your eternal salvation for others is simply a lack of trust in God.

That said, I would add that NONE of the situations we are discussing involve mortal sin because the three conditions for mortal are not all present. So what we are really doing is an academic discussion on the nuances of the Eight Commandment.

 

[surritter]

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.

Interesting post. Could this be the answer to solve our entire discussion?

 

[camerong]

Interesting post. Could this be the answer to solve our entire discussion?

Unfortunately, I don’t think so. The definition of the sin of lying, either from the Bible or from our common understanding of it, seems to be only “knowingly misrepresenting the truth.” It does not mean “knowingly misrepresenting the truth to someone who is entitled to hear it.” And I doubt that we can interpret sacred scripture and tradition to give us that more nuanced definition of lying, as it would have made all of the discussion about mental reservation moot.

 

[surritter]

Unfortunately, I don’t think so. The definition of the sin of lying, either from the Bible or from our common understanding of it, seems to be only “knowingly misrepresenting the truth.” It does not mean “knowingly misrepresenting the truth to someone who is entitled to hear it.” And I doubt that we can interpret sacred scripture and tradition to give us that more nuanced definition of lying, as it would have made all of the discussion about mental reservation moot.

But in addition to the Bible we have the guidance of the Church. In the Catechism (para. 2483) is says that lying is “to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

I don’t know if that is absolutely infallible, but does it seem to solve the problem of this discussion?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

surriter,

That was corrected in the new edition of the catechism. It no longer has “someone who has a right to know the truth”.

VC

 

[surritter]

surriter,

That was corrected in the new edition of the catechism. It no longer has “someone who has a right to know the truth”.

VC

Oh —

All right, I’ll go back to my original answer: The nuns were absolutely correct to not lie. The rest is in God’s hands.

 

[JRKH]

Not without considering the following - also from Christ himself. “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world (including but not limited to the lives of his friends) and lose his soul”? If we put our soul in jeopardy through sin for any consideration, then our priorities are wrong.

“Whoever does not hate his mother and father is not worthy to be my follower” (also paraphrased). So no, the lives of our loved ones, precious as they undoubtedly are, are not the be-all and end-point of our morality.

True, God will probably understand that in a moment of weakness and distraction we put the miserable hides (doomed to return to dust no matter what we do) of our fellow humans above the far more precious treasure of our immortal souls, but that’s not to say it’s the right way to set your priorities.

Many times Jesus and the Apostles could’ve made life easier for themselves or their followers by lying - and doubtless saved lives in so doing - but they never are recorded as lying for any motive whatsoever, or ever implying that it was OK to do so. What is more important than following the example they set - in this regard as so many others?

I will not disagree with you for it would be awful if we were to get into justifying that which God teaches as wrong.

Perhaps we should look at the two verses together.
What would it profit a man…
There is no greater Love…
The question would be, what “profit” would a person be seeking by knowingly lying in order to save lives? Obviously no profit at all. They would be lying, that is placing their soul in jepordy, that is laying down their eternal life, for the sake of their neighbor.

Next let us look at what the commandment is:
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

So this is not as clear cut as regards telling one person something untue when it serves the best interest of another person.
In the case given in the OP, who is the neighbor? Is it the people hiding in the Church? Or is it the men who wish to kill the people hiding in the Church?
Which group deserves the true witness of the nuns?

Also consider this. By “Lying” to the killers the nuns do two things.

1. They protect the lives of innocent victims and
2. Prevent the killers from committing the sin of murder.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think this teaching of Jesus has no application here. Read the lives of the saints – some of them wrote that they would rather die than commit even one venial sin. So it’s Christian to lay down your physical life for others, but to throw away your eternal salvation for others is simply a lack of trust in God.

That said, I would add that NONE of the situations we are discussing involve mortal sin because the three conditions for mortal are not all present. So what we are really doing is an academic discussion on the nuances of the Eight Commandment.

Well stated. This is an acedemic exersize that hopefully will allow us all a better understanding of the nuances involved.
Truth be told, none of us know how we would react in such a situation.

Peace
James

 

[tjm190]

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.

But see, physically restraining him would be a sin if there were no extenuating circumstances. In general, he has the right to leave and drive off if he wishes. The entire point is that, in some circumstances, denying someone a certain right (to information or to movement) may be necessary to keep them or others safe. Surely it’s wrong to lock somebody up for years at a time, and freeing such people is a good thing- but if a jailer were to free a prisoner, he would be sinning by turning that prisoner loose, would he not?

The jailer has a moral duty to continue keeping the prisoner locked up, as the bar patrons have a moral duty to keep the drunk man from driving, as the priests have a moral duty to keep the Nazis from killing the Jews.

 

[tjm190]

Btw-

“No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.282”