Sins of the Tongue (an article)

[mdgspencer]

This article from “Our Sunday Visitor” is on lying, calumny, detraction, flattery and boasting.
www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/8919/Sins-of-the-tongue.aspx

 

[Trishie]

Thanks for sharing the article

St James wrote (3:6): “And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.”

Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’"

Psalm 120:2 “Save me, O Lord, from lying lips and from deceitful tongues.”

Psalm 120:3 “What will he do to you, and what more besides, O deceitful tongue?”

Proverbs 16:27 “A scoundrel plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.”

However,
“Question your friend, he may have done nothing at all, and if he has done something he will not do it again. Question your neighbour, he may have said nothing at all, and if he has, he will not say it again. Question your friend, for slander is very common, do not believe all you hear. A man sometimes makes a slip, without meaning what he says; and which of us has never sinned by speech?” [Ecclesiasticus 1913-17]

The sins of the tongue, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm

 

[LilyM]

Great article. It makes well the point, usually hotly contested in threads on lying on CAF, that it’s not a given that lying is OK in the often-cited ‘lying to the Nazis when you have Jews hidden in your house’ hypothetical.

 

[John21652]

Great article. It makes well the point, usually hotly contested in threads on lying on CAF, that it’s not a given that lying is OK in the often-cited ‘lying to the Nazis when you have Jews hidden in your house’ hypothetical.

On that point, the article is naive.

As if the Nazis are going to come in for a cup of tea!

And, pray tell, when a Nazi is sitting down enjoying his refreshing cuppa, and I assume, a few nice home made biscuits to make him feel all comfy at at home amongst good friends, he just happens to ask, as is want in times of war, “are there any other people in this building?”

The rest of the article is a good one, explaining flattery, boasting and lying in general, and why it is wrong. However, on the point about the lying to the Nazis, I think the article fails.

It tells us this -

Our quick and dirty fallback for defending this breezy consequentialism is the hoary “Nazi at the door” scenario, where one is suddenly faced with the Gestapo looking for Jews in your basement, so you lie to save them.

Notice the adjectives used, namely “dirty” fallback and “breezy” consequentialism. It’s wartime, with atrocities occuring all about you, and you’ve broken the law of the land to hide the wanted Jews from certain death at the hands of an evil regime. As if, when the Nazis do come knocking on the door and your heart is in your mouth because the safety of your own family is just as much at risk as the Jews, you are going to exercise “breezy” consequentilaist ethical behaviour which someone, over fifty years later, will describe as a “dirty” fall back ethical position. That, I think, is a disgraceful analysis of the behaviour of someone who was aiming to “do the good”.

The regime which is committing the atrocities is an evil one. You owe it no allegiance. You have recognised its evil characteristics, one of which is a propensity to kill Jews em masse. In fact, because of that recognition, you have deliberately decided you owe it no allegiance and so you have broken one of its laws, which is, hand over any Jews you may know of. However, you have them hiding in your building. On that little score, you also are doomed. You are in the same boat as the Jews. On that point, both you and the Jews are ‘outside’ the regime. You do not recognise its moral authority. That is allowed according to Natural Law moral theory. It makes perfect sense too!

So, why do you owe that regime, or any of its agents, any other moral obligations, one of which is ‘the truth’?

I would argue that you don’t and that by lying about the Jews you are still giving to those who are outside the regime, all due moral consideration.

The article actually asks “Why does it matter to distinguish between lying and withholding the truth from people who do not deserve it?” It then gives this reason as to why it’s wrong - *"…because ideas have consequences." *Well, most times anyway, of course they do!

The author seems to forget that a part of the Natural Law theory of ethics is to do with consequences. However, that doesn’t make Natural Law ethics simply a ‘consequentilaist’ theory of ethics. It just means that it is because of possible and probable outcomes, or consequences, are why we have ethics and morals. The Natural Law ethical system describes for us what we ‘ought’ to do and if we don’t, then certain consequences will, or may follow. All of the moral imperatives associated with Natural Law ethics are for the flourishing of the person, the flourishing of his/her society, as well as the spiritual well being of both the person and his/her society.

Having said that, how can it be construed that telling the truth to the Nazis is helping the flourishing of either your family, the Jews and society to which you and they belong? Conversely, why do you owe the evil regime and its agents any moral consideration which will aid it in that regime’s flourishing?

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

**Cont.d **

The article then cites the following in defense of why it is wrong to lie to the Nazis. It says lying to the Nazis would be -

“the most direct offense against the truth” and something that “**y its very nature … is to be condemned” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2483; 2485)**I would argue that the evil regime which you have definitively achnowledged as having no moral authority is not “truth”. Nothing about it is close to representing ‘truth’ in any way. You have already recognised that moral fact by stepping outside the evil regime’s moral authority, because you do not recognise it. You have already stopped being truthful to that regime by hiding the Jews.

The article also states that lying to the Nazis is wrong because then -

Anything and everything may be said “for the greater good” and the common coin of language becomes worthless.

First of all, “the common coin of language” has already been rendered worthless by the evil Nazi regime whose moral authority you do not recognise and against which you have rebelled. The “common coin of language” also includes the language of morality and ethical behaviour. On that point, the evil Nazi regime has itself destroyed the “common coin of language”. It has totally subverted the language of commonly accepted moral discourse. That’s one of the reasons other nations declared war on it and it is why you are hiding Jews! Your actions are, in part, an attempt at preserving the “common coin of language”, properly used in a regime which has moral authority which you recognise.

As for the “greater good” the author is perhaps suggesting a slippery slope may exist whereby because we lie to the evil Nazi regime, we may therefore adopt the habit of lying “for the greater good”. I think the article’s authors chose that phrase unwisely. A more proper phrase would have been a “higher authority”, to which you owe allegiance and whose moral authority you recognise. The article says because we lie to the evil Nazi regime, whose moral authority we do not recognise, we may, at a later stage, adopt lying as something which is morally expedient. That, however, doesn’t hold true, because, at another time we will be making moral choices in a society whose moral authority we do recognise and accept and where we can recognise an authority higher than the society itself. That society is a part and parcel of ‘the truth’.

Therefore, lying to the Nazis about the whereabouts of the Jews is not an offence against the truth.

 

[Nate13]

If your not willing to lie to the Nazi’s that you have Jews hiding upstairs you should not be hiding Jews.

 

[Debora123]

I have a confession to make…

When I saw the title, for a split second I thought this thread was going to be about french kissing.

 

[LilyM]

So because the Nazis are lying scumbags that gives you the right to descend to their moral level and become a liar too?

I for one refrain from lying, or at least from conveniently persuading myself that it’s OK. I am a fan of employing appropriate silence or diversionary tactics for those who have no right to the truth.

My attitude is out of respect for Jesus who IS truth and never told a lie even when it would have been most expedient and saved His life and very likely the lives of His followers who were later persecuted. And who taught His Apostles, judging by their behaviour, also not to tell expedient lies.

And telling lies under most circumstances does, like any other repeated behaviour, gradually desensitize us to the inherent value of truth in all situations.

Take it from my own experience - lying under any circumstances has never done me or anyone else one bit more good than, as the catechism suggests, employing discreet (but never untruthful) language or silence.

**Cont.d **

The article then cites the following in defense of why it is wrong to lie to the Nazis. It says lying to the Nazis would be -
I would argue that the evil regime which you have definitively achnowledged as having no moral authority is not “truth”. Nothing about it is close to representing ‘truth’ in any way. You have already recognised that moral fact by stepping outside the evil regime’s moral authority, because you do not recognise it. You have already stopped being truthful to that regime by hiding the Jews.

The article also states that lying to the Nazis is wrong because then -
First of all, “the common coin of language” has already been rendered worthless by the evil Nazi regime whose moral authority you do not recognise and against which you have rebelled. The “common coin of language” also includes the language of morality and ethical behaviour. On that point, the evil Nazi regime has itself destroyed the “common coin of language”. It has totally subverted the language of commonly accepted moral discourse. That’s one of the reasons other nations declared war on it and it is why you are hiding Jews! Your actions are, in part, an attempt at preserving the “common coin of language”, properly used in a regime which has moral authority which you recognise.

As for the “greater good” the author is perhaps suggesting a slippery slope may exist whereby because we lie to the evil Nazi regime, we may therefore adopt the habit of lying “for the greater good”. I think the article’s authors chose that phrase unwisely. A more proper phrase would have been a “higher authority”, to which you owe allegiance and whose moral authority you recognise. The article says because we lie to the evil Nazi regime, whose moral authority we do not recognise, we may, at a later stage, adopt lying as something which is morally expedient. That, however, doesn’t hold true, because, at another time we will be making moral choices in a society whose moral authority we do recognise and accept and where we can recognise an authority higher than the society itself. That society is a part and parcel of ‘the truth’.

Therefore, lying to the Nazis about the whereabouts of the Jews is not an offence against the truth.

 

[LilyM]

If your not willing to lie to the Nazi’s that you have Jews hiding upstairs you should not be hiding Jews.

If you’re not willing to lie, you should find a better hiding place, or work out a Plan B for when those Nazis knock on the door, because when they do they’re most unlikely to be persuaded by your lies, nor probably will they even bother asking.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So because the Nazis are lying scumbags that gives you the right to descend to their moral level and become a liar too?

I doubt that’s what John is saying, or means. The moral principle is not “descending to their level.” The principle involved is the principle of justice. This has been discussed before on the radio show, Catholic Answers, by Catholic moral theologians. The principle involves “the right to knowledge”; therefore, it’s a matter of higher justice. It is not a matter of a means to an end, nor a matter of subjective application of justice, but rather illegitimacy.

Lying in the context of opposing a totalitarian regime using innocent citizens as instruments of murder (by exacting “honest” disclosure) is a rare example of an appeal to justice, as opposed to the kind of casual serious lies and “white lies” (rationalized lies) that many people, including practicing Christians, routinely participate in.

Plenty of Righteous Gentiles did engage in “silence and diversionary tactics” as well during The Shoah. Sometimes those were not sufficient for the SS, and confrontation ensued, or a demand for an “answer.”

I believe that lying is rarely justified, but I do not agree that it is never indicated.

 

[John21652]

So because the Nazis are lying scumbags that gives you the right to descend to their moral level and become a liar too?

Ok, let’s try this as a syllogism.

The Nazi regime was an evil regime.
Evil regimes are owed no moral allegiance.
Therefore moral acts which support evil regimes should be avoided.

 

[LilyM]

Ok, let’s try this as a syllogism.

The Nazi regime was an evil regime.
Evil regimes are owed no moral allegiance.
Therefore moral acts which support evil regimes should be avoided.

None of this makes IMmoral acts OK of course, particularly those that are inherently immoral.

I can not, for example, fornicate with Gestapo officers with impunity even if by doing so I might distract them and give some Jews time to escape.

The core principle here is that one cannot commit evil (even a very minor evil) as a means to a good end.

To which you would probably argue that lying is not evil at all depending on the circumstances.

My response is - where in any catechism, council or tradition is lying taught to be evil only in some circumstances, and either morally neutral or laudable in others? Where is the preservation of life taught to be a complete defence to the sin of lying?

It is certainly a complete defence to the sin of murder, but is openly and explicitly taught to be such. Which is, to my knowledge, not the case at all with lying.

 

[John21652]

None of this makes IMmoral acts OK of course, particularly those that are inherently immoral.

Then, in a toss up between giving up the Jews and lying, you’d give up the Jews.

I can not, for example, fornicate with Gestapo officers with impunity even if by doing so I might distract them and give some Jews time to escape.

Fornicating with a Nazi is giving pleasure to an official of an evil regime.

The core principle here is that one cannot commit evil (even a very minor evil) as a means to a good end.

My argument as outlined above is that you are not operating in a moral context and you owe the regime no moral allegiance. Giving it moral allegiance is to support it. Elizabeth502 correctly used the word ‘justice’ and the right to knowledge.

To which you would probably argue that lying is not evil at all depending on the circumstances.

You need to re-read what I posted about moral authority and context.

My response is - where in any catechism, council or tradition is lying taught to be evil only in some circumstances, and either morally neutral or laudable in others? Where is the preservation of life taught to be a complete defence to the sin of lying?

It is certainly a complete defence to the sin of murder, but is openly and explicitly taught to be such. Which is, to my knowledge, not the case at all with lying.

If lying is a defence to murder, then lying to the Nazis is lying to prevent their murder, so it, lying, is completely defensable.

The standard of ‘never lie’ is being true to an objective moral injunction, or standard, which is ‘always tell the truth’. However, the Nazi regime does not in any way, shape or form represent that objective moral standard. Therefore, telling the truth to the Nazis for any reason whatsoever is to support that which is not the objective standard of truth.

 

[LilyM]

Then, in a toss up between giving up the Jews and lying, you’d give up the Jews.

Sigh. No. Silence is NOT giving up the Jews, as they are pretty much guaranteed to search the house whatever I say or don’t say. Neither are other diversionary tactics such as fighting those Nazis, which I am perfectly entitled to do.

Fornicating with a Nazi is giving pleasure to an official of an evil regime.

Well, you can certainly lie in a way which will give a great deal of pleasure as well - Rahab did in scripture when she sent the soldiers off in the wrong direction!

My argument as outlined above is that you are not operating in a moral context and you owe the regime no moral allegiance. Giving it moral allegiance is to support it. Elizabeth502 correctly used the word ‘justice’ and the right to knowledge.

If that is your argument then it strikes me as a somewhat expedient bit of work. I owe a moral allegiance to GOD who is truth, to respect the truth by not lying. My allegiance to Him which binds me to do this is absolute and irrespective of anything I may or may not owe to the Nazis.

In the same manner, when I make an oath before God to love honour and cherish my husband I owe it to God to keep that vow irrespective of whether my husband is or remains a good man or an evil one. My obligations do not transfer to a new lover or to any third party even if my husband turns out to be a nasty piece of work

If lying is a defence to murder, then lying to the Nazis is lying to prevent their murder, so it, lying, is completely defensable.

I never spoke of lying being a defence to anything, rather j spoke of defences AGAINST culpability for lying. Self defence is indeed an exoneration against the sin of murder, but I have never seen or heard it authoritatively taught that self defence is an exoneration against the sin of lying.

The standard of ‘never lie’ is being true to an objective moral injunction, or standard, which is ‘always tell the truth’. However, the Nazi regime does not in any way, shape or form represent that objective moral standard. Therefore, telling the truth to the Nazis for any reason whatsoever is to support that which is not the objective standard of truth.

By your logic if a Nazi stops me in the street and asks me the time, I mustn’t under any circumstances give him the correct time - I am in fact morally obligated to lie to him, to tell him the wrong time. If he asks me if I am married, and I am, I must lie and tell him I am single. If he asks me if I know who the Fuhrer is, and I do, I must lie and answer ‘Josef Goebbels’ instead of ‘Adolf Hitler’. If he asks me if I am female, and my gender is too obvious to hide, I must nonetheless try with a straight face to say that I am
in fact male? You can’t seriously fail to see the flaw in your reasoning here.

Sure, I am under no obligation to tell the WHOLE truth in all circumstances, but that certainly does not translate into a moral obligation to lie, ever! No authoritative church teaching even hints as much.

Again, I don’t give a fig what moral standard the Nazis may or may not represent. GOD is my sole standard. And He, even in the most dire circumstances of threat to himself and his followers and loved ones, even in the face of intimidation by an evilly corrupt regime in the shape of Rome, He never let a lie pass His lips.

 

[LilyM]

Another thought - Jesus cooperated in lots of ways with the evil corrupt Romans. He insisted on paying taxes to Rome, and taught His followers that there were times when one has to ‘render unto Caesar’.

How does this square with your notion that one Is under some sort of moral obligation to not cooperate in any way with an evil regime? And make no mistake, the Romans were e evil In exactly the same way as the Nazis. For starters, they persecuted the Jews with incredible enthusiasm and viciousness. If they’d had the technology available to Hitler, they could easily have matched him in terms of results.

 

[Debora123]

I doubt that’s what John is saying, or means. The moral principle is not “descending to their level.” The principle involved is the principle of justice. This has been discussed before on the radio show, Catholic Answers, by Catholic moral theologians. The principle involves “the right to knowledge”; therefore, it’s a matter of higher justice. It is not a matter of a means to an end, nor a matter of subjective application of justice, but rather illegitimacy.

Lying in the context of opposing a totalitarian regime using innocent citizens as instruments of murder (by exacting “honest” disclosure) is a rare example of an appeal to justice, as opposed to the kind of casual serious lies and “white lies” (rationalized lies) that many people, including practicing Christians, routinely participate in.

Plenty of Righteous Gentiles did engage in “silence and diversionary tactics” as well during The Shoah. Sometimes those were not sufficient for the SS, and confrontation ensued, or a demand for an “answer.”

I believe that lying is rarely justified, but I do not agree that it is never indicated.

Honestly, I think people on here are too scrupulous sometimes when it comes to lying. When you’re lying to save the life of an innocent person, or when you lie and tell someone you like the present they gave you, or when you say you don’t think they look fat in those jeans… well, I see nothing wrong with any of those. It just takes some common sense to know when lying is ok.

 

[John21652]

Sigh. No. Silence is NOT giving up the Jews, as they are pretty much guaranteed to search the house whatever I say or don’t say. Neither are other diversionary tactics such as fighting those Nazis, which I am perfectly entitled to do.

Sigh to you too. I think you are as naive as the article on this point. The Nazis come knocking on your door because they are looking for Jews. They are not after a cup of tea and a biscuit. They will ask and if you remain silent they will immediately become suspicious and lo and behold you have given up the Jews. Congratulations on sacrificing innocent people to an evil regime by your obstinate desire to stick to a moral principle. The moral principle has failed at this point.

Well, you can certainly lie in a way which will give a great deal of pleasure as well - Rahab did in scripture when she sent the soldiers off in the wrong direction!

So lying is Ok to confuse an enemy?

If that is your argument then it strikes me as a somewhat expedient bit of work. I owe a moral allegiance to GOD who is truth, to respect the truth by not lying. My allegiance to Him which binds me to do this is absolute and irrespective of anything I may or may not owe to the Nazis.

My argument revolves around the fact that the Nazi regime represents everything that God is not. The evil regime is not-Truth, the contradiction of Truth. Therefore giving moral allegiance to a principle within the context of an evil regime is not giving God your allegiance.

In the same manner, when I make an oath before God to love honour and cherish my husband I owe it to God to keep that vow irrespective of whether my husband is or remains a good man or an evil one. My obligations do not transfer to a new lover or to any third party even if my husband turns out to be a nasty piece of work

Totally irrelevant. However, if your allegiance to an evil husband goes against the catcehismal definition of respect for the person. You are complicit in the denigration of yourself.

I never spoke of lying being a defence to anything, rather j spoke of defences AGAINST culpability for lying. Self defence is indeed an exoneration against the sin of murder, but I have never seen or heard it authoritatively taught that self defence is an exoneration against the sin of lying.

It has never ever been dealt with by the Church. And no-one knows why.

By your logic if a Nazi stops me in the street and asks me the time, I mustn’t under any circumstances give him the correct time - I am in fact morally obligated to lie to him, to tell him the wrong time.

Except if lying puts you in grave danger, otherwise, yes, tell him the wrong time and confound the evil empire just that little bit more!

If he asks me if I am married, and I am, I must lie and tell him I am single. If he asks me if I know who the Fuhrer is, and I do, I must lie and answer ‘Josef Goebbels’ instead of ‘Adolf Hitler’. If he asks me if I am female, and my gender is too obvious to hide, I must nonetheless try with a straight face to say that I am
in fact male? You can’t seriously fail to see the flaw in your reasoning here.

The flaw is in the increasingly illogical nature of your points. If you are obviously female, telling him you are male would probably get you a trip to the loony bin. So too would the quip about Goebbels being the Furher! I don’t think it takes a whole lot of common sense to figure out what untruths will confound the evil regime. Gee whiz, the allies spent great efforts on deliberately feeding false and misleading information to the Nazis. They lied!!

Sure, I am under no obligation to tell the WHOLE truth in all circumstances, but that certainly does not translate into a moral obligation to lie, ever! No authoritative church teaching even hints as much.

So now you are saying half truths are OK?
Remember, the conclusion in my syllogism was “*Therefore moral acts which support evil regimes should be avoided.” *Obviously, if telling the truth will support the evil regime, then try to avoid telling them the truth.

Again, I don’t give a fig what moral standard the Nazis may or may not represent. GOD is my sole standard. And He, even in the most dire circumstances of threat to himself and his followers and loved ones, even in the face of intimidation by an evilly corrupt regime in the shape of Rome, He never let a lie pass His lips.

Irrelevant. Yet, you would keep to Christ’s standard even if it means the loss of innocent lives? The article quoted gives very good examples of the harm that can be done to society when people lie. Obviously a society needs to have trust amongst its members if it is to function and flourish. However, in the case of the evile Nazi regime, we do not want it to flourish and function. We wish it to fall and dissapear. In that context, the application of a strict moral code, as is the expected norm in a properly funcioning society, is not justified when dealing with agents of the evil Nazi regime.

 

[LilyM]

Sigh to you too. I think you are as naive as the article on this point. The Nazis come knocking on your door because they are looking for Jews. They are not after a cup of tea and a biscuit. They will ask and if you remain silent they will immediately become suspicious and lo and behold you have given up the Jews. Congratulations on sacrificing innocent people to an evil regime by your obstinate desire to stick to a moral principle. The moral principle has failed at this point.

Of course the Nazis don’t want a cup of tea and a biscuit. Nor do they want plausible lying assurances that there are no Jews in the house. If they come to either of our houses, whatever either of us does or says they will search from top to bottom.

So lying is Ok to confuse an enemy?

OK? Not in my opinion, nor that of theologians like St Augustine (who was anything but naive, by the way). A minor venial sin perhaps, if the threat to life is imminent enough, if you are certain enough that nothing else will work, and if you are certain enough that the lie will work.

My argument revolves around the fact that the Nazi regime represents everything that God is not. The evil regime is not-Truth, the contradiction of Truth. Therefore giving moral allegiance to a principle within the context of an evil regime is not giving God your allegiance.

Interesting. I’m sure Christ, who personally paid taxes to the evil Romans, so gave them His allegiance, would be most impressed to hear that in doing so He denied God anything that is due Him.

Totally irrelevant. However, if your allegiance to an evil husband goes against the catcehismal definition of respect for the person. You are complicit in the denigration of yourself.

I don’t see any catechismal definition of respect for the person that requires that I ever lie for another. On the contrary, it is lying itself that is defined as going against the respect due to persons, who may not be entitled to all information, but are nonetheless are at least due the respect Christ gave to even His most evil enemies, of not being lied to.

has never ever been dealt with by the Church. And no-one knows why.

I would say it is obvious why. Christ said ‘I am the truth’, not ‘I am the truth only when it is convenient or expedient or gives you the warm fuzzies’. Any offense against truth, whatever the provocation, is at least on some level an offense against Him.

Except if lying puts you in grave danger, otherwise, yes, tell him the wrong time and confound the evil empire just that little bit more! The flaw is in the increasingly illogical nature of your points. If you are obviously female, telling him you are male would
get you a trip to the loony bin. So too would the quip about Goebbels being the Furher! I don’t think it takes a whole lot of common sense to figure out what untruths will confound the evil regime. Gee whiz, the allies spent great efforts on deliberately feeding false and misleading information to the Nazis. They lied!!

So did Hitler’s own regime lie, of course. The difference being on side was successful and so got to paint themselves and their lies in the most flattering light possible, the other did not. Certainly doesn’t mean anything in regards the morality of their actions in lying.

So now you are saying half truths are OK?

Better a half truth (which would constitute what the CCC terms ‘discreet speech’) than a whole untruth. Lies are wholly fathered by Satan whereas a half truth is at least half from God and half silence, which is morally permissible where the questioner has no right to the whole answer.

, the conclusion in my syllogism was “*Therefore moral acts which support evil regimes should be avoided.” *Obviously, if telling the truth will support the evil regime, then try to avoid telling them the truth.

No, your your conclusion was that ‘telling the truth to the Nazis for any reason’ was wrong because it constituted supporting an evil regime. Which includes even the most obvious truth., even for the reason that it would serve no purpose to lie. Hence my preposterous examples showing otherwise and hence your change of tack.

Irrelevant. Yet, you would keep to Christ’s standard even if it means the loss of innocent lives? The article quoted gives very good examples of the harm that can be done to society when people lie. Obviously a society needs to have trust amongst its members if it is to function and flourish. However, in the case of the evile Nazi regime, we do not want it to flourish and function. We wish it to fall and dissapear. In that context, the application of a strict moral code, as is the expected norm in a properly funcioning society, is not justified when dealing with agents of the evil Nazi regime.

Christ’s telling of the truth DID cost innocent lives, first His own and then those of His followers. He didn’t lie to save them, although he certainly could have.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is no comparison between truth (in this current discussion) and murder.

Lying in the exercise of heroic protection of human life (a lie which by its circumstance is also potentially self-sacrificial, given the conequence of being discovered) is not an intrinsic evil, whereas the taking of a human life --not to mention millions of innocent lives --by the Nazi regime, was an intrinsically evil act.

No Christian would be required to lie for the sake of courageous rescue, but neither is such an act condemnable.

I’m sorry, Lily, but I do not think you understand the principles of Catholic moral theology, including its roots in Augustine and Aquinas. (At least as demonstrated by your arguments.) Catholic moral theology is actually dynamic, in that it weighs goods against evils, not all of which have equal value. Intrinsic evils (like murder) have absolute quality; other evils do not.

Finally, your comparing of the redemptive self-sacrifice of our Divine Savior to His non-divine followers having no permission to lie in an extreme case of refusal to be an agent in murder, is a comparison without validity.