White Lies

[Tietjen]

While I agree that not all innocent third parties have a legitimate right to know, in my opinion, some do have that right. For example, if I am the owner of a club that the officer has decided will be a meeting place as part of the sting. Perhaps the officer has decided that it is an appropriate place, but I think I have the right to know so that my security guard doesn’t mistake him for a gun carrying thug, try to carefully get him out so that the club is safe, in the process angering the target and causing a shooting in which 3 “strangers” are seriously injured.

So, I don’t think it always the case that “strangers” have no right to know to protect themselves and others just because the officer decides to use a place you own or are responsible for.

I understand your position, however, in the above example, law enforcement will always attempt to use an environment where public safety won’t be an issue. Also, I know of no LEOs who would choose a club as an environment to conduct a “sting” and I have been in law enforcement for 20 years.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I understand your position, however, in the above example, law enforcement will always attempt to use an environment where public safety won’t be an issue. Also, I know of no LEOs who would choose a club as an environment to conduct a “sting” and I have been in law enforcement for 20 years.

I understand that officers decide to use what they think are appropriate places for various activities when undercover. However, sometimes they are tragically wrong.

In any event, do you agree that there may be instances in which innocent third parties do have a right to know the real identity?

If (as I think is the only reasonable answer) the answer is yes, then is not telling those folks a sin/lie? Of course, we all know the end being sought-capturing a criminal-is good. But we all also know that a good end doesn’t justify the wrong means.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I understand your position, however, in the above example, law enforcement will always attempt to use an environment where public safety won’t be an issue. Also, I know of no LEOs who would choose a club as an environment to conduct a “sting” and I have been in law enforcement for 20 years.

As an aside, in the situation I described the “sting” wasn’t supposed to happen at the club. The club was just being used as a meeting place early on in establishing cover.

 

[Tietjen]

I understand that officers decide to use what they think are appropriate places for various activities when undercover. However, sometimes they are tragically wrong.

In any event, do you agree that there may be instances in which innocent third parties do have a right to know the real identity?

There of course can be exceptions but in general no. There is no “right to know” who is and who is not an LEO working a “sting” operation.

If (as I think is the only reasonable answer) the answer is yes, then is not telling those folks a sin/lie?

No, because as I have said, not everyone who comes in contact with an LEO has a right to know. If what you suggested were true, anyone who worked in law enforcement would need to be a uniformed officer or risk being in sin. That is simply not practical. Do I have a right to know your profession? age? gender? address? children’s names? etc.? No. When you are driving down the highway and see a car pulled over on the side of the road by an unmarked unit, do you think to yourself, “There’s another police officer sinning?” But I feel we are beginning to move away from the original subject. “Not telling” does not equal lying.

Of course, we all know the end being sought-capturing a criminal-is good. But we all also know that a good end doesn’t justify the wrong means.

I agree with this statement. The only thing I disagree with you on is whether lying in any/all situations is a sin. Since I don’t see lying as being a sin when the truth is being withheld from someone who has no moral or legitimate right to know the truth, I don’t see the “wrong means” you address in the above statement.

What is lying and what makes it a sin? Here’s my understanding:

Lying is a deliberate act used to convey misinformation on to another with the purpose of deceiving that person(s).

Now, if you find my definition accurate what elements within the above definition make it a sin? In other words what is the base “evil” of a lie? I would presume that you would say it was the deception. Therefore, if deception is the element, it stands to reason that deception itself is an evil. Therefore, magicians must be very careful. Women who use any amount of makeup had better watch out. Actors & actresses, constantly portray fictional roles (lies?). Do you watch ANY television or go to movies? If so, wouldn’t you then be encouraging them to sin by purchasing a ticket or paying a cable bill? If lying is a sin because it uses deception to skew or eliminate truth then we all better be very careful because I seriously doubt that there is a man or woman alive who doesn’t use or support deception (of some magnitude) on a daily basis.

And lastly, I may have brought this up in this thread or perhaps it was in another similar thread… what about the book of Judith (found in the OT). She lied, used deception to get close to Holofernes just before she cut his head off. Yet despite this we see “God is pleased with what you (Judith) have wrought” Judith 15:10. I see a parallel between this subject and that of killing. We know that murder is a sin. However, we (Catholics) also know that there are times when the taking of a life is not sinful. It’s not always a cut and dry situation. I would suggest that lying also falls into this domain.

 

[OpenSource]

And lastly, I may have brought this up in this thread or perhaps it was in another similar thread… what about the book of Judith (found in the OT). She lied, used deception to get close to Holofernes just before she cut his head off. Yet despite this we see “God is pleased with what you (Judith) have wrought” Judith 15:10.QUOTE]

Didn’t Jesus do away with that old law in the NT? For example: It used to be ok to divorce but now it isn’t because Jesus said so? It used to be ok to take an eye for an eye but then Jesus said to turn the other cheek? Same with this example of murder.

 

[Tietjen]

Didn’t Jesus do away with that old law in the NT?

What “old law” are you speaking of? Judith lying/deceiving? or Judith killing Holofernes? Either way, I’d say that the answer is no. Jesus didn’t abolish the law… Matt 5:17. He is the New Covenant. He replaced the old covenant. Covenant meaning “agreement” not “law.”

For example: It used to be ok to divorce but now it isn’t because Jesus said so?

No, it was never “ok” to divorce. Moses began allowing it because the hearts of the people had become hardened. God NEVER intended divorce nor wanted it for His people. (Matt 19:8)

It used to be ok to take an eye for an eye but then Jesus said to turn the other cheek? Same with this example of murder.

Well… let me see if I understand what it is you’re saying. You hold to the belief that Christ did away with the Old Law and established a new law which contradicts what God had established previously, right? (This is going off topic but I’ll attempt to pull it back) If this was true, where would that place the 10 commandments, since we see Christ instructing a man to obey the commandments in order to be saved. (Matt 19:16-19). So, are all the old laws done away with? Just some of them? Or none of them? If Jesus “did away” with the old law, why do both the Catholics and Protestants continue to rally around the 10 Commandments today? Does God change? If something was evil before God during the time of Ezra, does God change His view on the evil and now call it good? IF all lying is considered a sin today, I suggest to you that God also saw all lying a sin yesterday. Since, in the case of Judith, we see praise for her deceptions I can only come to the conclusion that there must be some instances where lying is NOT considered a sin.

 

[OpenSource]

Don’t get all worked up Tietjan.

The ‘old law’ i was referring to was an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek rather than exact justice. And also the sabbath was abolished and now we celebrate the Lord’s day. You’re just playing semantics with ‘law’ and ‘covenant’ but the idea is the same.

“Well… let me see if I understand what it is you’re saying. You hold to the belief that Christ did away with the Old Law and established a new law which contradicts what God had established previously, right?”

Wrong. Stop putting your vicious words into my mouth. Forget I even said anything.

 

[white_sheep]

Why would they have a right to know the truth? Being “innocent” does not in fact give someone the right to know the truth. At best, it is a neutral position in the case above. When I refer to a “legitimate right to know” or a “moral right to know” I’m talking about situations where a person is accountable or responsible to the (or for the) subject of the lie. For example, if you were asked by the mother of “Betty” if you had seen her today, you are to speak the truth. Betty’s mother has a “right to know” as she is responsible in the eyes of God for Betty’s health and welfare. If, however, a law enforcement officer who is working undercover must lie to a stranger in order to maintain his/her cover, how is it that the stranger has a “right” to know that he/she is actually a police officer? Even if the stranger in question is not the intended target of the sting, the stranger still has no legitimate or moral right to know that the person is law enforcement.

You never have the right to lie. A lie is a lie and is sinful, even if it is expedient and convenient for you. If your employment causes you to sin in the course of your work, you should find a new job. There is no “he doesn’t have a right to know” exception to lying. Lying is sinful, period.

 

[Tietjen]

You never have the right to lie. A lie is a lie and is sinful, even if it is expedient and convenient for you. If your employment causes you to sin in the course of your work, you should find a new job. There is no “he doesn’t have a right to know” exception to lying. Lying is sinful, period.

Thus says you. I imagine that had you been alive in Europe during WWII and knew of location(s) where Jews were hiding, had you been asked by the Nazis, you would have given them up. Nice.

 

[Tietjen]

Don’t get all worked up Tietjan.

The ‘old law’ i was referring to was an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek rather than exact justice. And also the sabbath was abolished and now we celebrate the Lord’s day. You’re just playing semantics with ‘law’ and ‘covenant’ but the idea is the same.

LOL. I’m not “worked up,” promise. I’m simply arguing the point that not all “lies” and deceptions are sinful.

“Well… let me see if I understand what it is you’re saying. You hold to the belief that Christ did away with the Old Law and established a new law which contradicts what God had established previously, right?”

Wrong. Stop putting your vicious words into my mouth. Forget I even said anything.

Agreed, since your assertion that Christ did away with God’s law would be another thread and has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[white_sheep]

Thus says you. I imagine that had you been alive in Europe during WWII and knew of location(s) where Jews were hiding, had you been asked by the Nazis, you would have given them up. Nice.

Thus RELAYS me, I say nothing of my own accord here. Lying to save the infamous Jew in the closet is still lying. I would probably lie in that situation as I am such a weak sinner, but I wouldn’t deny the teaching of the Church on the matter.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1309. Will a good reason for telling a lie excuse it?
A. No reason, however good, will excuse the telling of a lie, because a lie is always bad in itself. It is never allowed, even for a good intention to do a thing that is bad in itself.

From the current CCC:

By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.

The entire section on lying runs from 2475 to 2492, you will not find any exceptions where it says it is ok to lie for a good cause. It does say that some circumstances may warrant us not revealing the truth.

Lying is also universally condemned in previous catechisms, and by various Church documents and writings of Ss Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.

This is really pretty simple, you may not do evil so that good may come of it. Or to really boil it down, you may not do evil, period.

To hold the position that lying is sometimes morally acceptable is to place oneself against Church teaching. The Church currently teaches and has consistently taught for thousands of years that all lying is wrong.

 

[Tietjen]

To hold the position that lying is sometimes morally acceptable is to place oneself against Church teaching. The Church currently teaches and has consistently taught for thousands of years that all lying is wrong.

I think that there is more to this, but I certainly respect your position. This is what Father Serpa had to say when asked the question, “Is it morally permissible to engage in undercover police work?”

Hi,

Of course, it’s morally permissible. Are we to allow such valuable work only to non-believers? One always has to look at the context. The context here is that the work is police work and is engaged in to protect the innocent. We certainly do not expect the police to risk the safety of the innocent by doing or saying anything that would divulge crucial information to criminals. Their intention is not to withhold information that criminals have a right to, but to advance their own advantage in their pursuit of behavior that is harmful to society. Christian morality is based on the will and what one intends.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. (Post is here)

 

[white_sheep]

I think that there is more to this, but I certainly respect your position. This is what Father Serpa had to say when asked the question, “Is it morally permissible to engage in undercover police work?”

I suppose it would depend on the scope and nature of your undercover work. As Fr. Serpa says there is nothing wrong with withholding information from those who have no right to it. However, if you have to lie in order for your undercover work to be successful then you have a problem. I’m not going to put words into Fr. Serpa’s mouth, but he answered that question far too broadly for it to be scrutinized closely. I’m sure that some undercover work does not include lying, while some probably does. Should one hold a position if it requires them to conduct themselves in an immoral fashion? Obviously not.

 

[Tietjen]

I suppose it would depend on the scope and nature of your undercover work. As Fr. Serpa says there is nothing wrong with withholding information from those who have no right to it. However, if you have to lie in order for your undercover work to be successful then you have a problem. I’m not going to put words into Fr. Serpa’s mouth, but he answered that question far too broadly for it to be scrutinized closely. I’m sure that some undercover work does not include lying, while some probably does. Should one hold a position if it requires them to conduct themselves in an immoral fashion? Obviously not.

I agree with that, but I question whether EVERY instance of lying is immoral. I know that you hold that it is; however, I’m not so sure. As I have pointed out, the evidence I have seen appears to make it a out to be more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no” question for every situation. Again, the book of Judith in the OT appears to say that that there are instances where it can be other than sinful. I’ll probably be smacked for this, but John 7:8-10 seems to say the same. I know (as I am sure you will agree) that Jesus did not sin, yet here He tells his disciples one thing… they leave… and He does the thing that He says He wasn’t going to do.

8 “Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
9 So saying, he remained in Galilee.
10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
(RSV-CE translation)

Before anyone accuses me of taking this out of context; read the entire chapter. If I am misunderstanding it, please point out where I am going wrong. Believe me, I do NOT wish to cast a falsehood on Christ and will gladly re-think the situation if someone can give me cause.

Additionally, as has been touched upon either in this thread or another (relating to this same subject) that I am in… what of the parent who supports their children’s belief in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and/or tooth fairy? Do they need to go to Confession as well?