Lying to save lives

[surritter]

I understand that surriter is trying to differentiate regarding the objectivitiy of the sin and that is fine, but even the catechism is not strident on the matter, consider this:
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. **To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. **By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

So in the case of the nuns lying I would have to ask what truth is being disotrted that would lead the killers into error, and also who it harms and what harm is inflicted upon the “victims” (those who are lied to who wish to commit murder)

Peace
James

Good points. I till see it as saying that a lie is in the category of “sinful,” but depending on the conditions as stated in 2484, it could be venial at best.

 

[JRKH]

Good points. I till see it as saying that a lie is in the category of “sinful,” but depending on the conditions as stated in 2484, it could be venial at best.

I agree
Lying - as a catagory - is sinful.
However, as with most things there are circumstances and conditions that can mitigate.
This is why it is necessary that we have a “Properly formed conscience”, so that we might be able to discern correctly.

Thus it is that I asked, in light of the circumstances of the OP and in light of the statements in the catachims, what truth has been neglected that caused someone to be led into error. Also. who are teh victims of the lie and what harm was inflicted upon them by the lie?

Peace
James

 

[mtnutt]

I think we have an example of how to best handle this situation. When Pilate asked Christ “Are you the King of the Jews?”, how did he respond?

“You say so”.

He did not lie, he did not tell the truth, he deflected. I readily admit this may not be easy to do in all situations, but in the examples given, this course of action is best, imho.

Me? Well, I’ve lied a few times to people to protect the lives of others. In fact, its part of my professional obligation sometimes. I’ve had people contact my work and asked if an individual was there, and while there was no legal requirements to inform the caller that the individual wasn’t there, the individual had asked me not to tell the caller she was there if he rang, because he was a violent thug who put her there in the first place.

I assume from this quote that you work at a hospital or battered womens shelter. In that instance, might it not be better to say “I am not at liberty to discuss that with you”, or something along those lines, than to lie?

To lie would be to commit a sin, although the gravity of such a sin would most likely be mitigated by the circumstances and would certainly be forgiven when confessed, imho.

 

[itrytofight]

This article might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242

I kinda find it funny that the authors of the Catechism changed this definition of lying:
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2483).

 

[LilyM]

This article might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242

I kinda find it funny that the authors of the Catechism changed this definition of lying:
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2483).

Well, the Catechism’s definition of lying isn’t inspired, unlike Holy Scripture, nor is it an exercise in infallibility, unlike the Papal pronouncements promulgating the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

So the same authority that promulgated the Catechism can revise it, as Canon Law is periodically changed or revised.

 

[surritter]

This article might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242

Thanks for this link. It helped me to understand what James was referring to in his posts about a well-formed conscience, and also the posters who compared lying to self-defense.
It also helped me to better grasp the complexities of the question, although I don’t think I’ve changed my mind – God will never oblige us to ue objective falsehood to someone, even if it to bring about a great good.
Truly food for thought – even for the great minds of our Church and the Magisterium, who continue to wrestle with the question. Heck, I don’t feel so bad now.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for this link. It helped me to understand what James was referring to in his posts about a well-formed conscience, and also the posters who compared lying to self-defense.
It also helped me to better grasp the complexities of the question, although I don’t think I’ve changed my mind – God will never oblige us to ue objective falsehood to someone, even if it to bring about a great good.
Truly food for thought – even for the great minds of our Church and the Magisterium, who continue to wrestle with the question. Heck, I don’t feel so bad now.

Hey - I feel your pain.
It is one of the great conumdrums of our faith that it should take so many volumes, containing so many words, to explain a teaching that stems from just two commandments: Love of God and Love of neighbor.(Mt 22:36-40)
But since Jesus himself tells us that all of the Law and Prophets are based on this, and it is obvious that The Church also, being Christ’s body, must be based in Love, I try to use this as my “yardstick” in understanding the Bible and the Catachism. In other words, how does a particular teaching evolve and how should it be understood in light of Christ’s Love.

Peace
James

 

[TEPO]

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?

The real question is: Does the end always justify the means? Or just when it seems useful? What if you knew for sure, that by killing one person, you could save the lives of 50? Would it be right? No, it wouldnt.

also-

I think that if nobody can trust each other to tell the truth, then that leads to bearing false witness against your neighbors… You will say: “I know that guy took my belongings, -he seems like the type to do such a thing”… These kinds of accusations are what cause war… Seriously, it does!

See how one sin leads to another?

 

[ready]

EXODUS 1:15-20

Command to the Midwives. 15 The King of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women and see them giving birth,*if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.” 17 The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the King of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you acted thus, allowing the boys to live?” 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.” 20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and grew exceedingly strong…

Did the midwives divert Pharoah with a mental reservation in this case or with a lie? Did they dodge his question with a mental reservation? - they had to have. But how is what they said a mental reservation and not a lie?

 

[JRKH]

EXODUS 1:15-20

Command to the Midwives. 15 The King of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women and see them giving birth,*if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.” 17 The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the King of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you acted thus, allowing the boys to live?” 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.” 20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and grew exceedingly strong…

Did the midwives divert Pharoah with a mental reservation in this case or with a lie? Did they dodge his question with a mental reservation? - they had to have. But how is what they said a mental reservation and not a lie?

Forgive me if I am in error here, but - -

The above occurred when the Hebrews were still enslaved in Egypt. This was before God had given them the Ten commandments, so it would be unfair to hold them to that standard, let alone the standard of the New Covenent.
Rather one would need to ask what was the understanding of “lying” at that time in salvation history.

Peace
James

 

[ready]

Forgive me if I am in error here, but - -

The above occurred when the Hebrews were still enslaved in Egypt. This was before God had given them the Ten commandments, so it would be unfair to hold them to that standard, let alone the standard of the New Covenent.
Rather one would need to ask what was the understanding of “lying” at that time in salvation history.

Peace
James

But man without the Ten Commandments were still supposed to follow the Natural Law inscribed upon their hearts. That’s why it was very wrong and a sin for Cain to kill Abel and for the people of the world to turn to idolatry, etc… Even without the Ten Commandments God expected his children on earth not to kill, to do idolatry, to be impure, etc… That’s why he chastised them so much and even flooded the earth…because men weren’t following the Natural Law he had put in their hearts. Only Noah and his family had kept faithful to him, and they were spared. Lot and his uncle were spared the destruction of Sodom because they were faithful.

Those midwives were faithful and so I trust that what they said wasn’t actually a lie, but a mental reservation. A CA Apologist on the phone told me that what the midwives said must have been a mental reservation. I just want to know how.

 

[JRKH]

But man without the Ten Commandments were still supposed to follow the Natural Law inscribed upon their hearts. That’s why it was very wrong and a sin for Cain to kill Abel and for the people of the world to turn to idolatry, etc… Even without the Ten Commandments God expected his children on earth not to kill, to do idolatry, to be impure, etc… That’s why he chastised them so much and even flooded the earth…because men weren’t following the Natural Law he had put in their hearts. Only Noah and his family had kept faithful to him, and they were spared. Lot and his uncle were spared the destruction of Sodom because they were faithful.

Those midwives were faithful and so I trust that what they said wasn’t actually a lie, but a mental reservation. A CA Apologist on the phone told me that what the midwives said must have been a mental reservation. I just want to know how.

OK, well I don’t think I have the best answers for you then. I can only say that it is difficult from our perspective of the New Covenent to discern what might be considered a legitimate mental reservation in the OT.

Peace
James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Those midwives were faithful and so I trust that what they said wasn’t actually a lie, but a mental reservation. A CA Apologist on the phone told me that what the midwives said must have been a mental reservation. I just want to know how.

Ready,

Is it possible that your presupposition needs to be amended? Perhaps the midwives could be faithful and have lied – i.e.have some virtue but not all virtue in perfection? If so, then what they said could still be a lie and not mental reservation.

For instance see St. Thomas Aquinas:

The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

All of II-II, q. 110 (from whence this was taken) might be useful to you. The point about Judith being praised might also apply.

VC

 

[distracted]

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?

NO!!