Lying to Scammers

[Eilrahc]

What if you’re at a parking lot and someone’s begging you for money (panhandling). It’s pretty obvious they’re making up sob stories and most likely gonna use that money for drugs or whatever. So you told them you don’t have any, even though you do. Is that still a sin?

 

[pnewton]

Lying is intrinsically sinful, meaning it is never justified. The moral thing in this situation is just to let your “no” be “no.” There is no obligation to give an explaination. Another option though, is to have the knowledge to redirect such a person to an area food pantry you contribute to.

 

[Eilrahc]

Lying is intrinsically sinful, meaning it is never justified. The moral thing in this situation is just to let your “no” be “no.” There is no obligation to give an explaination. Another option though, is to have the knowledge to redirect such a person to an area food pantry you contribute to.

I’m actually referring to scammers who claim they need bus money or other people you usually find roaming around parking lots of Walmart.

 

[Jaguar]

It’s not a sin. What are you suppose to say, “yes”, and then when he asks you to give him some, you tell him “no?” If you totally ignore him, is that the Christian thing to do?

What if he asks you where your children go to school or where you live? Are you suppose to tell him?

I don’t believe it is a sin to tell a lie, when the person asking the question is a complete stranger.

I usually just say “sorry” and keep walking.

 

[pnewton]

From the Catechism:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
**

**2482 **

“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil,… there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
**
Telling a deliberate lie is sinful. This has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. In the case above, no lie is necessary. A simple “no” should suffice. I think the " I have no money" is not done to spare the other person’s feelings, but our own. We do not want to be embarassed, even to a stranger. But if the choice is embarassment or lying, then obviously embarassment is what we should choose.

If a simple answer is not good enough and the person persists, then there is no harm in continuing in truth, namely that you have no way to determine if he is in need are scamming you for drug money.

If you are fearful of the person, then let that honestly show through with, “please get away from me.” I think a woman, young person or a smaller person has every right to do this in public.

 

[EatTheFishPeter]

A good thing to do would be to ask the person if you could buy a small food item for them. If they say “no” they were most likely going to use that money for something else.

 

[Rainaldo]

What if you’re at a parking lot and someone’s begging you for money (panhandling). It’s pretty obvious they’re making up sob stories and most likely gonna use that money for drugs or whatever. So you told them you don’t have any, even though you do. Is that still a sin?

But they usually don’t ask whether you have money. They typically ask for money. So when they say “Brother can you spare a dime”, the answer should be “No”, and the whole lying issue is avoided.

 

[Rainaldo]

It’s not a sin. What are you suppose to say, “yes”, and then when he asks you to give him some, you tell him “no?” If you totally ignore him, is that the Christian thing to do?

Why not?

I usually just say “sorry” and keep walking.

Last time I did that, the guy cussed me out for being insincere. Now I just say No.

 

[Rainaldo]

A good thing to do would be to ask the person if you could buy a small food item for them. If they say “no” they were most likely going to use that money for something else.

I disagree that it would be a good thing to do, because all you’re doing is playing a mind game with yourself. If they wanted food, they would ask for food.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I have no (name removed by moderator)ut on the morality of the lie question, but I learned a neat trick from my dad -

The city I grew up in (and I imagine most others) has police chaplains. Part of their job is to assist with such people, whether this be by getting them a sandwich or putting them in touch with a charity or what have you.

Since this nearly always happens outside a wal-mart or some such place that would probably lend a phone to someone asking to contact the police, I say “I’m sorry, I can’t help you” (which is true, I am not equipped to determine whether I’d be helping or hurting) “but if you contact the police department, they have a chaplain who will be able to take care of you.”

This has the upside that if they’re sincere, they actually can call the police and get help, with the further upside that if they’re after drug money, they aren’t likely to want to talk to the police and, since they now associate you with the police, with you either. In either case, they say thank you and the issue is solved.

 

[Aquinas_Jr]

It’s not a sin. What are you suppose to say, “yes”, and then when he asks you to give him some, you tell him “no?” If you totally ignore him, is that the Christian thing to do?

What if he asks you where your children go to school or where you live? Are you suppose to tell him?

I don’t believe it is a sin to tell a lie, when the person asking the question is a complete stranger.

I usually just say “sorry” and keep walking.

It is a sin to ignore someone. The words “ignorance” and “ignore” are related. Secondly, a lie is not contingent on someone being a stranger. The person who fears God but has no fear of man, will simply say, “yes, I have money, but I am not going to give it to you.”

 

[Paul_Cattigan]

A lie is a lie -they don’t come in different colours (as in “it’s only a white lie”). Indeed terms such as “white-lie” and “fib” are just lieing words for lie.

As to the real moral question perhaps you should reflect on the parable of the Good Samaritan or indeed on the contents of Chapter 25:31- 46 of St Matthew’s Gospel.

You do not KNOW what these people might buy with any money that you might give them - you are only guessing. It might be that the person is an angel of the Lord there to test you - or indeed an emissary of the Enemy there to tempt you into sin.

As to the buying of food for a person in this situation have you considered that by doing so you are imposing your desires on them and denying them use of their God given free will. If they can raise money not just from you but from others they can then exercise that free will to purchase a bus ticket or food of their choice. They may also make a sinful decision but that is for them to decide and for them to live with the consequence.

Speaking as a Dominican I believe that our Seraphic Father St Francis of Assisi has much to teach us as to how we view those less fortunate than ourselves as individuals and not as part of some group (the poor, drug addicts, the homeless, scammers). This enables us to engage with them as persons rather than by applying a comforting fable that we “know that they will only use it to buy drugs, wine, or something else we disapprove of” as a means of avoiding our charitable duty. Which since we cannot know for certain what the person will use it for is simply another lie - told to ourselves.

Br Paul OP

 

[Iron_Donkey]

A lie is a lie -they don’t come in different colours (as in “it’s only a white lie”). Indeed terms such as “white-lie” and “fib” are just lieing words for lie.

As to the real moral question perhaps you should reflect on the parable of the Good Samaritan or indeed on the contents of Chapter 25:31- 46 of St Matthew’s Gospel.

You do not KNOW what these people might buy with any money that you might give them - you are only guessing. It might be that the person is an angel of the Lord there to test you - or indeed an emissary of the Enemy there to tempt you into sin.

As to the buying of food for a person in this situation have you considered that by doing so you are imposing your desires on them and denying them use of their God given free will. If they can raise money not just from you but from others they can then exercise that free will to purchase a bus ticket or food of their choice. They may also make a sinful decision but that is for them to decide and for them to live with the consequence.

Speaking as a Dominican I believe that our Seraphic Father St Francis of Assisi has much to teach us as to how we view those less fortunate than ourselves as individuals and not as part of some group (the poor, drug addicts, the homeless, scammers). This enables us to engage with them as persons rather than by applying a comforting fable that we “know that they will only use it to buy drugs, wine, or something else we disapprove of” as a means of avoiding our charitable duty. Which since we cannot know for certain what the person will use it for is simply another lie - told to ourselves.

Br Paul OP

It’s good to make sure that we’re not using the fact (and it is a fact) that most people in these situations are scammers to escape our very real duty to charity. But we have finite resources. We should do our best to make sure they go as far as they can. Giving to people who, statistically speaking, are likely to spend the money on alcohol or drugs limits what real good we can accomplish.

So buying someone a sandwich is good. Maybe it is imposing your will on them to a small extent, but that is justifiable. Especially if they say “can I have money for a sandwich”. Then the only imposition of will is holding someone to their word, which is generally fine and often good. Giving this person cash is also good, but I do not think you can say that it is better than offering to provide whatever they say they need the money for.

It is also fine to tell them you can’t help them. We are under no obligation to assume that everyone asking for money is telling the truth (I don’t have to give that Nigerian Prince my bank account information so that he can put money in there before someone or other steals it). We are allowed to use our brains when determining what we should do with the limited resources we have.

If you do give out cash, it’s fine to say that if the recipient chooses to sin with the money you gave them, that’s their fault - but only up to a point. If they do sin, there’d be accidental material cooperation on your part, and that risk should be avoided when possible (in a morally acceptable way). Of course, we can’t know if they will sin with the money, and shouldn’t judge the individual - should not pretend that the fact that most people in such situations are scammers lets us know for certain that this particular person is a scammer - but if we have a different solution that has the ability to actually really help this person out if they’re being honest (and maybe even if they’re not) without putting us in the position of cooperating in their self-destruction if they’re not, then I would argue that such a solution is certainly morally acceptable, and is probably the morally superior choice.

 

[pnewton]

I like to keep food in my car so I can pass it out to such folks. I would say that if there is a place where you see these people all the time, why not cooks something up and take it to them. It would usually be appreciated while at the same time sending the message that you are not the one to turn to for cash.

 

[jmcrae]

What if you’re at a parking lot and someone’s begging you for money (panhandling). It’s pretty obvious they’re making up sob stories and most likely gonna use that money for drugs or whatever. So you told them you don’t have any, even though you do. Is that still a sin?

It’s more of a safety issue. What you say is, “I have nothing to give you.” Which isn’t the same thing as saying that you have no cash on you; it simply means that you didn’t bring any for him. You can then direct him to the agencies in your city that are equipped to assist him.

If panhandling is illegal in your location, you could also call the police.

The Apostles teach in the Didache that we are not to give alms to random strangers. We are to assist our family members in need, and the agencies that are equipped to help the poor, including the Church.

Street beggars have been around forever, and the Church has always been reminding us to direct them to the proper agencies, rather than hand over our hard-earned cash to them without knowing who they are or what they plan to do with the money.

 

[Aquinas_Jr]

It’s more of a safety issue. What you say is, “I have nothing to give you.” Which isn’t the same thing as saying that you have no cash on you; it simply means that you didn’t bring any for him. You can then direct him to the agencies in your city that are equipped to assist him.

If panhandling is illegal in your location, you could also call the police.

The Apostles teach in the Didache that we are not to give alms to random strangers. We are to assist our family members in need, and the agencies that are equipped to help the poor, including the Church.

Street beggars have been around forever, and the Church has always been reminding us to direct them to the proper agencies, rather than hand over our hard-earned cash to them without knowing who they are or what they plan to do with the money.

Christ says, “fear not those who can harm only the body but the one who can destroy both soul and body” Therefore, it is foolish to risk eternal hell-fire in fear of the safety of one’s physical body. Making this decision not only forces a lie, but displays a lack of faith in God’s promise of the afterlife

 

[jmcrae]

Christ says, “fear not those who can harm only the body but the one who can destroy both soul and body” Therefore, it is foolish to risk eternal hell-fire in fear of the safety of one’s physical body. Making this decision not only forces a lie, but displays a lack of faith in God’s promise of the afterlife

I am not suggesting lying. “I have nothing to give you” does not mean that I have no money on me; it simply means that what I have is allocated to the needs of my children. Should I starve my children so that a stranger can get his fix of illegal drugs?

Also, the more money you give, the more panhandlers will come to get money from you and your neighbors, and the more drug dealers will come to sell drugs to them, which endangers the children in your community.

 

[Aquinas_Jr]

I am not suggesting lying. “I have nothing to give you” does not mean that I have no money on me; it simply means that what I have is allocated to the needs of my children. Should I starve my children so that a stranger can get his fix of illegal drugs?

Also, the more money you give, the more panhandlers will come to get money from you and your neighbors, and the more drug dealers will come to sell drugs to them, which endangers the children in your community.

Any type of deception is a lie. It is easier to say “I have money and choose not to give it to you”. Since you are under no obligation to give this theoretical person money, why is it complicated? If someone over the internet asked you for money, would you not say, “no”? What’s the difference? For some fear of how they react?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Any type of deception is a lie. It is easier to say “I have money and choose not to give it to you”. Since you are under no obligation to give this theoretical person money, why is it complicated? If someone over the internet asked you for money, would you not say, “no”? What’s the difference? For some fear of how they react?

False.

CCC

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

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.283

 

[Aquinas_Jr]

Simply saying “False” is an assertion fallacy. And your argument is also erroneous. The definition of deception isn’t “use of discreet language”. The definition of deception is a voluntary intent to deceive away from the truth.