Thou Shalt not Lie?

[Ron_Conte]

Ron, without having had the opportunity to review the above in depth, I would like to address your choice of examples. While they are quite appropriate, they are also, at least to me, quite obvious. Note how your examples involve the large issues of human life, while those I pose are of a far less critical, life threatening, “mortal sin” nature.
So long as you and I keep using examples from the opposite ends of a spectum of examples we’re going to wind up talking past each other.

Examples are the problem. When the Magisterium teaches that a particular type of act is intrinsically evil, it is a matter of faith that the act is therefore always immoral. But if instead we look at innumerable examples of that type of act, because we are fallible we will sometimes find examples where it seems – to our sinful fallen fallible minds – that the intrinsically evil act should be considered moral.

If you consider a thousand examples of lies, what percentage of the time will you err and mistakenly think that the lie is moral? If 5% of the time, that is 50 examples of lies that you will think are moral. You cannot thereby conclude that the type of act is not always immoral because you are fallible. It is a matter fo faith, so I am not interested in going through example after example of lies that seem moral. Perhaps sometimes it is not actually a lie. Perhaps other times it is a lie and is immoral, but it seems moral to we who are fallen fallible sinners.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The commandment is Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
And in the catechism references I used above, the description of a lie includes “the intent to deceive” and to “lead into error”.

The ten commandments are not a list of every sin. Instead, the ten commandments list ten archtypical grave sins. That is whay the type of lying condemned in the ten commandments is of the grave type (not the more common venial lie). This does not imply that lesser lies, not told as a false accusation (calumny), are somehow either moral or at least not intrinsically evil. The Catechism gives the examples of lying and of calumny (a lie told as a false witness against your neighbor).

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

I’ve already explained why the Catechism mentions the intention to deceive; it is the most common intention associated with the act of lying. But the Church also includes the intention (to relieve suffering) in the definition of euthanasia (Evangelium Vitae). Euthanasia is a type of murder. This does not imply that one can murder a patient as long as one has a different intention. It is not unusual to state, in the definition of a sin, the usual intention or the usual circumstances. But when an act is intrinsically evil, the act is immoral regardless of intention or circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: “Regardless of intentions and circumstances, euthanasia is always an intrinsically evil act, a violation of God’s law and an offence against the dignity of the human person.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_01101999_elderly_en.html

Pope John Paul II: “Despite the intentions or circumstances, direct euthanasia is an act which is always and per se intrinsically evil…”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1993/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19931111_pennsylvania-ad-limina_en.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

You are losing me again.
So I act, to deceive my wife for intention of surprising her with a party in her honor. My intent is to deceive – what is the object in this that is objectively evil?

In the items quoted from the Catechism (my main source of teaching) nothing is said about “fonts”. The two references state what a lie is. It is, to speak or act against truth in order to lead someone into error. It consists of, 1) speaking a (known) falsehood with the 2) intent to deceive….
So the way I read this, in order for something to be considered a lie, intent must be taken into consideration since such intent is inherent in the definitions given in the Catechism.
As a clarification on the above, this intent MUST be seen within the boundaries of a properly formed conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit and the Teachings of the Church. I am always speaking with this view in mind and not seeking some “loophole”.

OK, this is an easy one….Now explain how it applies to telling an untruth to someone to ensure their surprise at their surprise birthday party….

Peace
James

See my post above about examples and fallibility.
God is Truth, therefore all lies offend God, regardless of intention or circumstances.

The problem with this discussion is that you are only looking at the Catechism. It is very easy to misunderstand the CCC when it is interpreted apart from all the rest of the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Read Veritatis Splendor by JP2. This encyclical is the first and foremost magisterial document on the basic principles of ethics.

The common theological term ‘fonts of morality’ (fontibus in Latin) is translated as ‘sources of morality’ in the CCC.

I. The Sources of Morality

1750 The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen; - the end in view or the intention; - the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

The immorality of an intrinsically evil act resides in the act itself. This type of act is immoral by the very nature of the act, because the act is ordered toward an evil object (an end in terms of morality).

The intention resides in the subject, the person who acts.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject.

When an act has an evil object (moral object), the act is intrinsically disordered – it is a type of act that is always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

AGAIN, the CCC mentions the most common intention in the sin of lying, but this does not imply that intrinsically evil acts are defined by intention, nor does it imply that a lie with a good intention is moral.

 

[JRKH]

Examples are the problem. When the Magisterium teaches that a particular type of act is intrinsically evil, it is a matter of faith that the act is therefore always immoral. But if instead we look at innumerable examples of that type of act, because we are fallible we will sometimes find examples where it seems – to our sinful fallen fallible minds – that the intrinsically evil act should be considered moral.

If you consider a thousand examples of lies, what percentage of the time will you err and mistakenly think that the lie is moral? If 5% of the time, that is 50 examples of lies that you will think are moral. You cannot thereby conclude that the type of act is not always immoral because you are fallible. It is a matter fo faith, so I am not interested in going through example after example of lies that seem moral. Perhaps sometimes it is not actually a lie. Perhaps other times it is a lie and is immoral, but it seems moral to we who are fallen fallible sinners.

This feels like avoidance to me. You have had seemingly no problem with the use of examples in order to demonatrate your point, but becuase I request that we deal with “low end examples” because these are the ones giving me trouble you seem to want to avoid using examples at all. You even edited out my request when you quoted my post.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your efforts, but a magisterial teaching that something is “intrinsically evil”, like a physics theory, needs to be demonstrable in both large and small examples. It must work in all cases to be valid. Yet you seem to be willing to clearly demonstrate it in large case examples, but unwilling in small case examples.

A case in point is where after you carefully explained the problem with Euthenasia, I asked this:
OK, this is an easy one….Now explain how it applies to telling an untruth to someone to ensure their surprise at their surprise birthday party….
So far I have seen no answer to this request.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

See my post above about examples and fallibility.
God is Truth, therefore all lies offend God, regardless of intention or circumstances.

The problem with this discussion is that you are only looking at the Catechism. It is very easy to misunderstand the CCC when it is interpreted apart from all the rest of the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Read Veritatis Splendor by JP2. This encyclical is the first and foremost magisterial document on the basic principles of ethics.

The common theological term ‘fonts of morality’ (fontibus in Latin) is translated as ‘sources of morality’ in the CCC.

I. The Sources of Morality

1750 The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen; - the end in view or the intention; - the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

The immorality of an intrinsically evil act resides in the act itself. This type of act is immoral by the very nature of the act, because the act is ordered toward an evil object (an end in terms of morality).

The intention resides in the subject, the person who acts.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject.

When an act has an evil object (moral object), the act is intrinsically disordered – it is a type of act that is always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

AGAIN, the CCC mentions the most common intention in the sin of lying, but this does not imply that intrinsically evil acts are defined by intention, nor does it imply that a lie with a good intention is moral.

Frankly it’s not geting any clearer as it applies to “innocent deceptions”, for lack of a better term.

A family is planning a surprise party for the mother. Her sister is just frosting the cake when whe pops in for coffee (they never knock). She asks “who’s the cake for”? Caught off guard and thinking fast, her sister says. “It’s for a friends baby shower”.
Does the “birthday girl” have a right to the truth?
The sister has told an untruth.
Has the sister lied?
What is the intent?
What is the moral object?
What is the intrinsic evil?

Please, I really want to see how you apply the rules here.

Peace
James

 

[RichP]

Frankly it’s not geting any clearer as it applies to “innocent deceptions”, for lack of a better term.

A family is planning a surprise party for the mother. Her sister is just frosting the cake when she pops in for coffee (they never knock). She asks “who’s the cake for”? Caught off guard and thinking fast, her sister says. “It’s for a friends baby shower”.
Does the “birthday girl” have a right to the truth?
The sister has told an untruth.
Has the sister lied?
What is the intent?
What is the moral object?
What is the intrinsic evil?

Please, I really want to see how you apply the rules here.

Peace
James

For this particular situation, the overall intent is to keep the surprise party a surprise. The cake is not for a baby shower. It is for the surprise party. Her sister had several possible reponses. The easiest way to preserve the surpise of the surprise party is to answer with a lie (untruth?) which the sister did. The sister could have said that it is for the surprise party. She would have told the truth but the surprise party would no longer be a surprise. She could have replied, “I cannot tell you…” in some creative way which would be telling the truth but preserving the surprise. She could have chosen not to answer. “I didn’t realize how late it is. I have to go now…” Not answering the question is not lying. The sister could have said (if it were true…) something like “I am trying out my new cake decorating tools.” She’s not answering the question directly and not lying. Of course, this doesn’t close the conversation and the question may be asked again…

These various scenarios can be generalized by asking, "Does the end (i.e. final intent) justify the means (telling a lie)? Does the end purpose of keeping the surprise party a surprise justify saying the cake is for a baby shower? Even though this seems fairly innocent, the answer is NO. The Church teaches that the end never justifies the means. This is contrary to how many people think and act in today’s society.

Even though this is an “innocent” situation and many people would call this a harmless, “white” lie, this opens the door to possibly more “white” lies in the future becoming habitual. If the sister is “thinking fast” and her immediate response is a “white lie”, then she may have already acquired this habit…

 

[JRKH]

For this particular situation, the overall intent is to keep the surprise party a surprise. The cake is not for a baby shower. It is for the surprise party. Her sister had several possible reponses. The easiest way to preserve the surpise of the surprise party is to answer with a lie (untruth?) which the sister did. The sister could have said that it is for the surprise party. She would have told the truth but the surprise party would no longer be a surprise. She could have replied, “I cannot tell you…” in some creative way which would be telling the truth but preserving the surprise. She could have chosen not to answer. “I didn’t realize how late it is. I have to go now…” Not answering the question is not lying. The sister could have said (if it were true…) something like “I am trying out my new cake decorating tools.” She’s not answering the question directly and not lying. Of course, this doesn’t close the conversation and the question may be asked again…

These various scenarios can be generalized by asking, "Does the end (i.e. final intent) justify the means (telling a lie)? Does the end purpose of keeping the surprise party a surprise justify saying the cake is for a baby shower? Even though this seems fairly innocent, the answer is NO. The Church teaches that the end never justifies the means. This is contrary to how many people think and act in today’s society.

Even though this is an “innocent” situation and many people would call this a harmless, “white” lie, this opens the door to possibly more “white” lies in the future becoming habitual. If the sister is “thinking fast” and her immediate response is a “white lie”, then she may have already acquired this habit…

Thanks for your reply here. I see much good in it. but it does not answer each of the questions I posed for response to clarify.
I am hopeful that Ron will come back today and identify each of the items I asked about. He seems to have a much more orderly mind than I do…

Peace
James

 

[SyCarl]

How would you deal with Judith’s lies in the Book of Judith and Raphael’s lie in the Book of Tobit?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

So…
It is a sin to tell a friend that you are baking a cake for church when you are realy baking if for their suprise birthday party…
It is a sin to tell a child about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy…
It is a sin to lie to protect innocents you are hiding from a regime that wants to kill them.

In any of the cases above, I wonder if my confessor would tell me that I had sinned…

JKRH:

I can’t tell you what YOUR Confessor would say. I can only tell you what my Previous Confessor from the late 1970’s said in Moral Theology Classes and what 2 of my later ones have said they would have said:
– Surprise B-Day Party - The Concealment is necessary and part of preserving the Surprise - There’s no sin here;
– Young Children - Santa, Easter Bunny & Tooth Fairy - The church I used to be a member of even had “Visits from St. Nick” - young children are innocent & need myths, so, as long as this is kept in proportion, there is no sin here; and
– Hiding Jews from Nazis - Nazis had no right to the truth - The Jews would most certainly have been sent to a Death Camp and very probably would have been killed if the Nazis find them. Because of their Nazis murderous intent, there is no justification for telling them the truth about the Jews’ whereabouts.
Now there are almost no circumstances where someone would have the right to the correct time, so I see very little reason for the question earlier in the Thread.

In circumstances such as telling Nazis/Communists/Murderous Thugs the Truth, We need to look at any “Harm” done by the “Lie” versus the “Harm” done if someone were to tell them the truth in that situation.

With exceptions such as those above, God’s word says (1) I can’t lie about those I hate in order to hurt them or damage their reputations, and (2) I can’t lie about those I love in order to help them or to improve their reputations. And, I’ll repeat this from the Catechism, because the Catechism gives us a Definition of “Lie” that is different" from our usual definition we live with:
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.
The Catechism is a Translation of a Latin Document and is intended as a guide, not as the Final Word. It is our job to inform our consciences and to read, mark and inwardly digest the Scriptures and the Church Fathers and to listen to the Teachings og the Magisterium of the Church.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The Church teaches that lying is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. If someone does not have a right to a particular truth, one may remain silent or use mental reservation, but lying remains immoral.

Some persons take the position that lying is sometimes moral, and these persons generally allow for supposedly-moral lying in numerous circumstances, little lies told to protect someone’s feelings, or to avoid a negative consequence, in various daily circumstances.

But no one takes the position that lying is only ever moral when there is grave danger to the lives of the innocent, or other grave circumstances.

What happens very commonly, though, is that people use the example of grave danger to the innocent (for some reason they often cite the Holocaust) in order to justify all the little convenient lies of daily life. It is reprehensible to use the deaths of millions of Jews during World War II as a way to justify selfish little lies told to avoid some relatively minor unpleasantness in daily life.

Ron,

What “Unpleasantness of daily life” are you talking about? Questions wives ask their husbands when they don’t really want to hear the unvarnished truth? What do you think Charity towards your spouse would have you say (unless you LIKE sleeping on the sofa) when your wife says, “Does this make me look fat/ugly…?” Do you really think your dying mother wants to hear that she “Looks like death warmed over”, or that she “Has Terminal Cancer & doesn’t have a chance to live more than a week.” Do you really think someone who just spent the last 1-1/2 hours slaving over a hot stove wants to hear how rotten the food was, or that someone who just washed your clothes for you wants to hear you complain about how dull & lifeless the whites & colors were? Or, Do you want to have someone say how boring and uninformative your report was after you spent most of your weekend working on it instead of playing with your son and being with your wife?

I didn’t think so, and I don’t think you so insensitive that you’d do the rest claiming that to do otherwise would be sinful, because you would know that to treat these people so shabbily would not only be insensitive, it would be a sin against charity.

I suggest you reread the Catechism - I was surprised that the Church does not use our normal definition of lying -
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.
I think it’s fair to ask how what one is saying would lead the other into error and how we would be injuring that person’s relationship to the truth and God. In the case of the Nazis trying to find Jews, The Nazis are already in error, and have already damaged their relationship to the Truth and God, because they are trying to imprison, torture & murder Innocent Jews. Someone “Lying” (Our Definition) to the Nazis about where the Jews were hiding would not be leading them into error or further harming their already severely damaged relationship with God and the Truth.

I understand that during the Persecution of Diocletian, Roman Officials went through the houses of Christian Clerics hunting for copies of the Scriptures. In many situations, even Bishops gave the Officials (many of whom couldn’t read) copies of what they told them were the Scriptures (after they had hidden their actual copies of the Scriptures). According to the reasoning I’m hearing here, these Bishops lied, and sinned, when they protected the Scriptures from being burned by the Romans during the beginning of the 3rd Century.

Please make sure you’re using the right Definition of “Lying” and that you’re not conflating our modern ideas about what constitutes “Lying” with the Church’s idea of that which leads someone into Error or damages his or her relationship to the Truth.

The Babylonian Talmud said only 3 things were absolutely forbidden - Remember that the Church comes from the People of Israel

1. Worshiping a False God
2. Murdering the Innocent
3. Giving False Witness against another, esp. against an Innocent person.

We have a duty to study and not just to Parrot what we believe the Church says in the Catechism.
In Christ, Michael

 

[John7]

In both Exodus and Leviticus, the commandment is against, “bearing false witness against your neighbor”.

The above is not quite correct. Came across this verse today and remembered your thread,

Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 have ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor’, but in Leviticus,

(NAU) Leviticus 19:11 **You shall not **steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Don’t know how (or if) different these two are:
‘Thou shalt not lie’
‘Thou shalt not lie to one another’ ??