Morally permissible to live a lie? And why?

[graciew]

I am thinking of self defense…it is the extreme of an extreme to stop an aggressor.
And yes, it would be honest to say we told a lie as the last resource to protect a life .Hoping it worked…
That would be the truth in good conscience , wouldn’t it?
And hold to the consequences, whatever they may be.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Yes. Most people would call taking another person’s things stealing regardless of the situation. We really need to do a better job teaching the Catholic Social Doctrines to our kids so the adults know about it!

 

[TheLittleLady]

That phrase was removed from the Catechism in 1997.

The change:

1. The second sentence of this paragraph presently reads:

“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.”

This sentence will be modified to read:

"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error."

Library : List of Catechism Changes | Catholic Culture

 

[tafan2]

I agree with you about teaching Catholic Social Doctrine to kids. The problem is that it has never been well taught to any of us. Just the other day, on this forum, a long time poster, a Catholic, posted that the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church was so leftist that he did not think people should accept it. I was floored. I doubt if he had ever read it, it certainly is not leftist.

Just to be clear for others, I know @TheLittleLady is not disagreeing with me, this is the paragraph in the catechism which defines theft:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

 

[tafan2]

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

It seems to me that lying to save a jew from Nazis is not trying to lead the Nazis into error, it is trying to save them from one more error.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yes, but when someone’s life is on the line, I would opt for that hope.

But there’s also the hope that remaining silent or refusing to cooperate would also work.

No, I think the analogy I gave is better. The intent of the starving man is to take the property, just as the intent in the Nazi case is to speak a falsehood. The former is not theft, the latter is a lie.

Except that’s equivalent to what I said - speaking falsehood isn’t always lying, and taking property isn’t always stealing.

The real problem with using one to blindly justify the other is that both have at least working definitions. CCC 2401 defines what stealing is, but it does so in a way that steal leaves open the question of what happens if the “sake of the common good” requires someone to take another’s property, since the “sake of the common good” is part of the reason to not steal.

The definition of lying in CCC 2464 and 2482, though, don’t really leave open this question. In the Nazi case, you’re still trying to deceive (against CCC 2482) and misrepresenting the truth (against CCC 2464).

So the two aren’t really that equivalent when applied like this. One at least works within how the Church understands stealing. The other is, at best, trying to find a loophole, if not downright dismissing the Church’s teaching entirely.

I am thinking of self defense…it is the extreme of an extreme to stop an aggressor.

Of course, self-defense also relies on not wanting to take a life but having no other option. There are other options in the scenarios provided to justify lying.

 

[TheLittleLady]

In these discussions, I never take the Nazi bait.

None of us can know what sort of mental and emotional processes went on. Those who hid people (not only Jews, but the disabled, Catholics, many groups were targeted for the camps) knew full well what risk they were taking. They did not just do it on a whim. They did so with full knowledge they were risking their own lives.

You and I cannot know what that moment was like. We can read history, and I have never read an account where:

Nazis knocked on a door and said “sorry to bother you at this hour, but, are you hiding any Jews?”.

Hider replies “Nope”.

Nazis say “Thank you for your cooperation, have a great evening!”

This is why the Nazi argument just does not work.

We don’t live in WWII Europe.

 

[tafan2]

It is a hypothetical situation for sure, I had said above that I had obviously never been in the situation. Nevertheless, it is a hypothetical situation that works when addressing this issue, IMO. First of all, we know of accounts where people did hide jews from the Nazis and it is safe to assume they had to lie at times to do so. So it was a dilemma that did happen. The fact that it is an extreme situation is also why it works. While I take the position that lying is ok in this extreme situation, I do not want to give the impression that it is normally ok. So by taking that position only in such an extreme, I am acknowledging that most of us cannot rely on this example in our day to day lives as a guide. Hence, I do not really fear leading others into sin. We are all asked, at times, a question to which the questioner does not have a right to know the answer. We must decline to answer, not lie.

 

[Canvas]

How would it be possible for a true Catholic to live what is in essence a lie, such as in a witness protection program, or with a “legend” (falsified life story) as in the intelligence services?

Well, being in a witness protection program is very different than someone who claims to have been a secret agent or a decorated veteran etc. In the Witness Protection program, your life and your family’s life may be in danger, so there is a grave reason why you are “living a lie”. It doesn’t make lying right, but leaving yourself and family vulnerable to the Russian mob is a serious matter that would excuse some or much culpability.

For a fake war hero, you don’t have the excusing factors.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

We don’t live in WWII Europe.

Of course it’s not a typical situation. Everyone agrees that lying most of the time is wrong. But if you’re going to have a flat rule that says deception is always wrong 100% of the time, no exceptions, then you have to address the extreme situations too.

 

[Socrates92]

Now there is an expanded definition of the sin of lying that just says withholding the truth is a sin. I liked the old definition better. Fr. Pro is a beati in any event, and then we have the sainted members of the 40 Martyrs of England and Wales who hid priests and no doubt lied about it when necessary.

That may be the colloquial definition of lying, but the definition of the sin of lying has never included withholding the truth from someone who does not have the right to know. Strictly speaking, committing a venial sin of lying under extreme duress also isn’t likely to be a major impediment to canonization. You would expect martyrdom to outweigh it.

 

[graciew]

There are other options in the scenarios provided to justify lying.

In the case of Nazi knocking at your door and you are hiding someone?
Cannot really think of anything else to say but “ no” if asked if one is hiding anyone…
I really cannot see how much more “ creative” than a “ no” might come out

 

[tafan2]

If I am ever of a group who is being hunted by a fascist or communist government, and a two different people offer to hide me, I think I will pose the scenario to them before I choose whose help I accept

 

[TheLittleLady]

going to have a flat rule that says deception is always wrong 100% of the time,

I’ll take these (the entire article in the Catechism is worth study, space won’t allow posting the whole thing. You can read it at Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 8 ):

[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.”

[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. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

No, I get it. I just have to imagine that there is wiggle room with regards to what qualifies as a lie, because otherwise it just strikes me as perverse. I’ll be totally honest, if I was ever in that very rare situation, I’d lie like a rug and sleep like a baby that night.

I know what the Catechism says, but every ounce of my conscience says that the person who says “nope, no Jews here!” isn’t just not sinning, but is in doing something morally laudatory.

 

[tafan2]

So the two aren’t really that equivalent when applied like this. One at least works within how the Church understands stealing. The other is, at best, trying to find a loophole, if not downright dismissing the Church’s teaching entirely

I agree with your logic. Which is why I find the Church’s absolute teaching on lying troubling, in this extreme case.

I’ll be totally honest, if I was ever in that very rare situation, I’d lie like a rug and sleep like a baby that night.

I have to agree with this, and I hope the Good Lord would understand why I was dismissing the Church’s teaching.

 

[Canvas]

I have to agree with this, and I hope the Good Lord would understand why I was dismissing the Church’s teaching.

I would have to assume that lying to protect an innocent person from harm and unjust persecution is among the most venial of sins, like telling the wife you like her new hair style when you don’t or telling your kid that Santa is coming etc.

 

[ZMystiCat]

In the case of Nazi knocking at your door and you are hiding someone?

The link I posted earlier mentioned a story told by St. Augustine of a bishop who, rather than lie, explicitly stated that he refused to cooperate.

 

[graciew]

Ok thanks . Sorry I missed that one!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That may be the colloquial definition of lying, but the definition of the sin of lying has never included withholding the truth from someone who does not have the right to know. Strictly speaking, committing a venial sin of lying under extreme duress also isn’t likely to be a major impediment to canonization. You would expect martyrdom to outweigh it.

It’s not “colloquial” - if you look up many of the older threads on the forum you can see the sources, particularly the Catechism sections. Maybe you don’t care about the Catechism as a source, but as Catholics, we do. Here is just one of many example threads.

Lying is ALWAYS a Sin: Resurrection Thread Moral Theology

+JMJ+ I decided to resurrect the topic of an older thread (in which I have participated before) because I apparently have found at the very least a partial answer to this moral conundrum that initially shook my faith a couple of years ago. To recap, there are two scenarios that are being considered here. One is the scene in which a person who is running from those trying to murder him/her hides in your house, then the aforementioned potential murderers knock on your door and ask if the person…

And it’s not an impediment to canonization since many, many martyrs were obviously living a lie to some extent by hiding their Christianity from the authorities till they were caught. It’s true that when they were directly confronted about being a Christian, they answered honestly and didn’t deny it, but in many cases throughout history they were “underground” for long periods of time for their own survival.

Leaving this discussion now as I’m not really that interested in the 1,000th rehash of the same topic, having made up my own mind on this already. I just came here because somebody else linked a thread I started on something else.