Morally permissible to live a lie? And why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I understand that it is for the greater good of an individual and their family, law enforcement, and/or the country’s security, but still, it seems as though it would be an example of the unacceptable moral principle “the end justifies the means”.
 
Just in general, I don’t believe in stretching moral principles to the point of obvious absurdity. If you do, you’ll be one of those people who feels forced to take the morally ludicrous position that if you’re hiding Jews in your attic and the Gestapo comes knocking, you’re obliged to say “why yes, there are indeed some Jews hiding here. Please, come in and cart them off to Auschwitz.”

Sometimes your conscience and common sense is superior to a super consistent legalist principle.
 
Last edited:
If good Catholics have helped other people live lies to protect them, like making fake documents for Jews during WW2, why wouldnt they be able to live a lie to protect themselves?
 
Scripture nor the Catechism mince words. Lies are sins, however, what constitutes a lie is also clearly defined.
 
40.png
Priest who disguised himself as an SS man Spirituality
The last couple days I was reading a few webpages on the 2,579 Catholic priests at Dachau. Much of the information was extremely depressing as one would expect, but a bright spot was the story of a German Jesuit and former master of novices named Fr. Otto Pies. He was released from the camp, but disguised himself as an SS man to smuggle a truckload of food back to the starving prisoners in the camp and smuggle out 30 priests. Two days later when 5400 prisoners including 88 priests were led in…
Click to expand...
Interesting story about a priest in WWII who disguised himself as a Nazi (aka lied/was deceptive) to save others. I wouldn’t be too afraid to stand before God if I was this priest.
 
I have heard the theory that “you do not owe your enemies the truth”. If that theory is indeed true, then that would cover such things as false statements in times of warfare, as well as the other respondent’s comment about the Church creating fake documents to save people’s lives. I have heard of the latter example. However, just because the Church did it, doesn’t make it right.

There are times when very hard moral decisions have to be made. The one that immediately comes to mind is the final episode of MASH, where the baby was crying on the bus, and the choice was whether to allow the Communists to know the whereabouts of the refugees (by them hearing the baby crying) and have them all killed, or for the mother to suffocate the baby so that it would no longer cry and all would be quiet.

At this point I am reminded of the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman:

“The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I have heard the theory that “you do not owe your enemies the truth”. If that theory is indeed true, then that would cover such things as false statements in times of warfare, as well as the other respondent’s comment about the Church creating fake documents to save people’s lives. I have heard of the latter example. However, just because the Church did it, doesn’t make it right.

There are times when very hard moral decisions have to be made. The one that immediately comes to mind is the final episode of MASH, where the baby was crying on the bus, and the choice was whether to allow the Communists to know the whereabouts of the refugees (by them hearing the baby crying) and have them all killed, or for the mother to suffocate the baby so that it would no longer cry and all would be quiet.

At this point I am reminded of the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman:

“The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”
Click to expand...
People who did those things were not living a lie. They may have gone against a law, but they stood with their Judeo-Christian values through and through if they dressed as an SS officer to save lives. As far as the baby, there could have been another way – the mother offering the breastfeeding infant her breast, creating a distraction, etc., I don’t think killing an infant is ever morally excusable.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I have heard the theory that “you do not owe your enemies the truth”. If that theory is indeed true, then that would cover such things as false statements in times of warfare, as well as the other respondent’s comment about the Church creating fake documents to save people’s lives. I have heard of the latter example. However, just because the Church did it, doesn’t make it right.

There are times when very hard moral decisions have to be made. The one that immediately comes to mind is the final episode of MASH, where the baby was crying on the bus, and the choice was whether to allow the Communists to know the whereabouts of the refugees (by them hearing the baby crying) and have them all killed, or for the mother to suffocate the baby so that it would no longer cry and all would be quiet.

At this point I am reminded of the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman:

“The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”
Click to expand...
Couple of things. First, I agree that sometimes you have to make hard moral decisions, and there may be situations in which morality requires doing something that will have negative consequences. I just don’t think all falsehoods are “lies” in the moral sense, any more than all sex is fornication.

As to the example from MASH, if I remember correctly, the woman didn’t deliberately suffocate the baby. She was trying to shush it, and in her fear squeezed the child too tight. Tragedy, for sure, and I agree it would not have been morally licit to kill the baby, even if not doing so led to them being caught by the Communists. I just don’t think that’s a good analogy for a situation in which someone has to be deceptive in the service of good.

As to the Cardinal Newman quote, I agree, but notice his qualifiers: willful untruth, without excuse, etc. I guess what I’m saying is that lying to save an innocent person from the Nazis is not a willful untruth in the same way that lying for private gain is. If I’m ever in that situation, and I’m wrong, hopefully God will give me credit for at least obeying my conscience.
 
I seem to recall that the sin of lying in those days was defined as withholding the truth from someone who has a right to know it. The Nazis obviously didn’t have a right to know that the priest wasn’t really SS or that he was a priest or that he was smuggling food. Any more than the Mexican troops and law enforcement had a right to know Blessed Father Pro was a priest come to say Mass and not a gambler or rich businessman or laborer or whatever disguise he had on that day.

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.
 
Last edited:
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
As to the Cardinal Newman quote, I agree, but notice his qualifiers: willful untruth, without excuse , etc. I guess what I’m saying is that lying to save an innocent person from the Nazis is not a willful untruth in the same way that lying for private gain is. If I’m ever in that situation, and I’m wrong, hopefully God will give me credit for at least obeying my conscience.
Click to expand...
I wondered if the quote meant “steal one poor farthing without excuse” or “[do any of the above] without excuse”. It’s not clear from the syntax. Neither does the word “willful” make it clear whether he refers to “telling a lie without realizing it is a lie” (which is no sin) or “telling a lie even though you don’t want to” (i.e., you would not lie unless you absolutely had to, such as in the case of throwing the Nazis off track).

I’m also not clear about lying being defined differently, as Tis_Bearself cites, i.e., withholding the truth from someone who has a right to know it, versus withholding the truth, period. Moral theologians have differed on whether lying is an absolute or a relative matter.
 
There are past threads on which this change, which is relatively recent per the catechism, has been discussed extensively, using the common example of hiding Jewish people under the table and then lying to the Nazi when he comes to ask where the Jews are. Some people would get around it by technically saying something to the Nazi that isn’t a direct lie, e.g. “I don’t know what you mean” rather than “No Jews here.” Whatever, in that situation I’d say and do what I thought prudent and I’d confess any lie in confession later. If it’s a sin there would no doubt be mitigating circumstances.

Remembering the scene at the end of the movie “Sound of Music” where the Nazis can’t start their cars to chase the Trapps and the two nuns say they have sinned and reveal the car parts they took out of the cars and hid under their habits. You do what you gotta do.
 
Just to be clear, stealing (the catechism uses the term theft) is always a sin. But taking another’s property when a reasonable person would give it to you, is not theft, eg taking food to feed a starving family.
 
Here is a pretty good article on the matter. Some basic points are:
  1. This matter has been debated for a long time.
  2. All saints agree that we should never speak falsehood in the usual cases we’re presented with.
  3. For those more unusual cases (e.g. like the Nazi cases mentioned here), there’s really no good way to justify it in a way that doesn’t break down.
  4. The Catholic Church has left some room open on the matter.
Personally, I’m not a fan of lying in any case. Silence or saying you won’t cooperate are may be just as effective and don’t require doing what would normally be a sin. Generally, when we permit some form of killing, it is because that is the only option. That doesn’t really exist in cases of lying, unless you want to stretch out to some absurdly specific scenario akin to what one might do when employing utilitarian analysis.

With that said, I think we can at least empathize with those who lie for intention of, for instance, saving someone’s life and recognize the good that came of it (if any). Even Rahab is praised for her faith, though she is known in large part of lying to protect the spies.
 
Regarding the hypothetical Nazi scenario, it seems to.me that lying would more likely to be effective compared to silence or non-cooperative. But if course I haven’t been in that situation. If I had to lie in such a situation, I would not feel any guilt at all. Mental reservation would be the alternative.

I have always thought that just as the Church does not always consider taking someone else’s property as theft, so there are extreme cases where not telling the truth is not a lie.
But I suppose I should assent to the Church’s teaching.
 
After you said this, I skimmed over one of these threads, and I have these observations:
  • If I had to guess, I’d say the CCC did not make the distinction between lying as an absolute evil versus the “those who have a right to the truth” scenario, because it is not a morally certain matter, and theologians differ on this.
  • Keep in mind that some cultures view this differently, and some people are faced with near-impossible situations (under totalitarian regimes, corrupt governments, etc.) where the wrong answer could have dire consequences.
  • Not everyone has sufficient intelligence or composure to craft their words carefully so as to evade without lying (e.g., mental reservations).
  • On the other hand, our own society has become so open and accepting of life circumstances that were previously thought to be so shameful as virtually to force people to lie.
A common example would have been making up a story about a pregnant unwed daughter “gone to care for her sick aunt who lives far away” or a gay man pressed about marriage saying “I just haven’t found the right girl yet”. (Note: I do not necessarily expect a gay person to reveal their orientation if they don’t want to — and if I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t — but the point is that gay people are no longer expected to create a charade about themselves.)

All of this said, I have zero respect for the person who casually lies to make their life go more smoothly. [Spitting on the ground here…] We all know the type.
 
That’s your opinion and not dogma.

Some (many) people have no right to the truth.
 
It is indeed an excellent article, and I have found over the years that anything Jeffrey Mirus writes, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Well worth reading.
 
tafan2 said:
it seems to me that lying would more likely to be effective compared to silence or non-cooperative
Click to expand...
I think it’s assuming a lot. It’s assuming that they won’t search anyways. It’s assuming that they don’t already know. It’s assuming that they won’t find out through surveillance. It’s lying with the hope that things work out, not the guarantee.
tafan2 said:
I would not feel any guilt at all
Click to expand...
Of course, whether or not there is guilt is not the measure by whether or not there is sin.
tafan2 said:
Mental reservation would be the alternative.
Click to expand...
Some forms of mental reservations, that which can only be known in the mind of the one saying the lie, has already been condemned.

The problem is that much of mental reservation boils down to that. Unless there’s a very explicit way to play with the wording of the question, there’s really no way to use this as an out.
tafan2 said:
I have always thought that just as the Church does not always consider taking someone else’s property as theft, so there are extreme cases where not telling the truth is not a lie.
Click to expand...
I would say that that is more equivalent to the fact that the Church doesn’t consider speaking falsehood a lie. In many cases, we would think as such, but the Church also considers things like intent to deceive.
 
ZMystiCat said:
I think it’s assuming a lot. It’s assuming that they won’t search anyways. It’s assuming that they don’t already know. It’s assuming that they won’t find out through surveillance. It’s lying with the hope that things work out, not the guarantee.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when someone’s life is on the line, I would opt for that hope.
ZMystiCat said:
Of course, whether or not there is guilt is not the measure by whether or not there is sin.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true.
ZMystiCat said:
I would say that that is more equivalent to the fact that the Church doesn’t consider speaking falsehood a lie. In many cases, we would think as such, but the Church also considers things like intent to deceive.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top