Would you rather die than lie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether we throw them off the track with our clever “Clintonesque” true words or just plain out lied, there is no difference.

Actually, there is a difference. You might want to read about the difference between broad and pure (strict) mental reservations:
catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05286.htm

Also under the eighth commandment:
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=32&ChapNum=9

When we know exactly what the question is, and we send them away knowing that they have inferred the wrong answer to that question, and we think that lying is always wrong, then we have a problem.

If you’ve stated part of the truth and someone infers the wrong answer do you consider that lying?

I’ve been trying to find who used a certain mental reservation. It goes something like this: a priest who was being pursued by the police disquised himself as a policemen and when asked if he saw himself he simply said “he just went around that corner” which was true. I’m assuming that’s Blessed Miquel Pro:
stfrancisrelgoods.com/miguel.html
 
For example, if I was hiding Jews and a Nazi knocked on my door and asked if I was hiding any Jews, to say “no” would be a lie, but to say “I can’t answer that question” would, in practical terms, amount to admitting that I was hiding them. What could I say that would both not be a lie and not give away too much?

Let’s try a hypothetical situation:

First off, do you honestly believe that the nazi’s would take your word for it? If they asked “Are any jews hidden here?” you might say something like “I doubt you’ll believe me so search my house if you want. I honestly think you’re better off looking [insert place where you know jews aren’t]”. Did you utter anything false? Wouldn’t you honestly believe that the nazis are better off looking for jews where there are none? Did you reveal that you have jews hidden there?
 
Madia said:
For example, if I was hiding Jews and a Nazi knocked on my door and asked if I was hiding any Jews, to say “no” would be a lie, but to say “I can’t answer that question” would, in practical terms, amount to admitting that I was hiding them. What could I say that would both not be a lie and not give away too much?

Let’s try a hypothetical situation:

First off, do you honestly believe that the nazi’s would take your word for it? If they asked “Are any jews hidden here?” you might say something like “I doubt you’ll believe me so search my house if you want. I honestly think you’re better off looking [insert place where you know jews aren’t]”. Did you utter anything false? Wouldn’t you honestly believe that the nazis are better off looking for jews where there are none? Did you reveal that you have jews hidden there?
Click to expand...

Thanks. I’ll hopefully never need to use this, but I’m glad to know it. That makes sense to me.
 
Corrie Ten Boom, the famous Dutch woman who survived a nazi concentration camp and devoted the rest of her life to travel around the world and give talks about forgiveness, reccounts in one of her books this anecdote:
One family had made a hole beneath the dining room table, big enough to hide several people. They closed it and covered it with a rug. One night the Gestapo knocked on the door. The Jews that were at that moment inside the house immediately hid inside that hole, and the family went on having dinner, pretending everything was as usual. Someone opened the door, the soldiers rushed in and asked where the Jews were. The youngest member of the family: a girl that firmly believed what she was taught: that she should never lie, responded: ‘they are hiding under the table’. :bigyikes:

The family was shocked -though nobody showed it- and very angry that she had betrayed their secret. Then something extraordinary happened: this girl started laughing uncontrollably (she always did when she felt nervous). :rotfl:

The nazis thought she had lied and was laughing at them and incredibly as it sounds, they did not even bother to search under the dining table and left the house at once without harming anyone.👋

Carrie mentions that as the war continued, all of the members of this family were taken to concentration camps. Except that girl.

Somehow God spared her.

Thought provoking, don’t you think? :hmmm:

Alma

*All you need say is ‘Yes’ if you mean yes,
‘No’ if you mean no;
anything more than this comes from the Evil One.
Mt 5,37
*
 
40.png
Madia:
If you’ve stated part of the truth and someone infers the wrong answer do you consider that lying?
Click to expand...
If you strategically state part of the truth so they will infer that you answered them in a way you did not, then that is no different than lying in that you intend to deceive, and you get it done. They ask a question that you know clearly what they mean, and causing them to infer something false by leaving out parts of the truth, to me, is lying.

For example, Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Turns out there a context in which that was absolutely true. He was using a definition of “sex” that a judge had determined valid for one of his previous court cases, that arguably did not include the acts he did perform with Ms. Lewinsky. If you think it’s OK to tell part of the truth strategically to give the wrong impression, then you have to agree that Bill Clinton did not lie then, and also did not lie when he asked questions such as what does “is” mean. I mean, really, if a person says to me, “are you having sex with so and so,” I think I’d be tempted to look around like I Must Be Missing Something and say, “not to my knowledge.”

Or just do like his wife, “I’m sorry I can’t recall.”

These are ways to “allow” people to infer things without actually lying, or at least lying in such a way “I can’t recall” that nobody can prove you are.

If you’re just lousy at telling the truth and leave something out, that’s different. Like the wonderful story of the little girl who told the truth but wasn’t taken seriously? If the other parents had believed that deceit was wrong, they would have told the officers that she only laughs because she’s nervous but that She Really Wasn’t Kidding. No, they shut up. They worked with the unlikely truth of the girl, so as not reveal the Jews’ hiding place. They may have gone to the camps, but they neither gave up the location of the Jews. I don’t know if we are to infer that the girl was virtuous and the rest weren’t, because of their fates. If so, then I guess the family should have cleared it up for everybody and said, “She’s really telling the truth. See, there’s a trap door under the rug. Now I’ve taught my daughter to be honest and I don’t appreciate you thinking she’s trying to fool you or make fun of authority.”

Alan
 
If had had the opportunity to die for my God and His justice and mercy, I wouldn’t miss a beat jumping forward
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
If had had the opportunity to die for my God and His justice and mercy, I wouldn’t miss a beat jumping forward
Click to expand...
All you have to do is go to a wacko who hates religion and get him to shoot you. Or is it cheating if you actually seek out the wacko.

Alan
 
All you have to do is go to a wacko who hates religion and get him to shoot you. Or is it cheating if you actually seek out the wacko.
Click to expand...
First off please be charitable in you posts. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you post items like this? If you disagree with someone’s ideas than please post with the intent of having them see their error of their belief, not with the intent of seeing how stupid they are for holding their belief.
If you strategically state part of the truth so they will infer that you answered them in a way you did not, then that is no different than lying in that you intend to deceive, and you get it done. They ask a question that you know clearly what they mean, and causing them to infer something false by leaving out parts of the truth, to me, is lying.
Click to expand...
Please read about craftiness and guile:
newadvent.org/summa/305503.htm
newadvent.org/summa/305504.htm

Now read about mental reservations:
newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

So what is the difference between craftiness and wide mental reservations? It seems that craftiness is used with the intent to deceive another for either a good or bad end. The end (deception) would be intended as with lying. A wide mental reservation may fall into the realm of double effect where the evil action (self-deception) is permitted but not intended:
secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doubleeffect.htm
all.org/about/decapp01.htm

For example, hiding jews from those trying to kill them is a morally good action. However, it may also fall into double effect since the action could have two effects: the preservation of lives (good) and the self-deception (evil) of those looking to kill the jews.

For those who object to criteria #2 of the double effect (the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect) saying that the good effect (preservation of life) is obtained by means of the evil effect (allowing self-deception) then please explain why in self-defense the good effect (preseravtion of life) is not being obtained by the evil effect (death of the attacker).
 
40.png
Madia:
First off please be charitable in you posts. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you post items like this? If you disagree with someone’s ideas than please post with the intent of having them see their error of their belief, not with the intent of seeing how stupid they are for holding their belief.
Click to expand...
I think he was just making a joke…whatever the intent, I took no offense, I only laughed:)
 
40.png
Madia:
First off please be charitable in you posts. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you post items like this? If you disagree with someone’s ideas than please post with the intent of having them see their error of their belief, not with the intent of seeing how stupid they are for holding their belief.
Click to expand...
I call 'em like I see 'em. It’s not like I’m saying they will go to hell like other people tell me I will if I’m not Fully Mental Assenting.

I have no desire to be martyred, and if someone else does that’s wonderful. I appreciate those who have more faith than I do in this regard. OK, I’ll take it back. I’m not afraid to change my words because I am their author, therefore have authority and responsibility for them.

Charitable? Seriously? I speak from my heart, and claim no authority other than that I have “authored” anything here. Sometimes I think people take things seriously that are not important, and others think I take things seriously that are not important. In a lecture I recently heard about G.K. Chesterton, the speaker said that Chesterton sees like more as “playful” than “serious.” Problem is, I am too honest sometimes for my own good and tend to blurt things out.

I don’t “expect” anybody to take me any other way than they do. I’ve learned not to try to predict, because with the number of posters on this forum no matter what I say, I tweak someone the wrong way.
Please read about craftiness and guile:
newadvent.org/summa/305503.htm
newadvent.org/summa/305504.htm

Now read about mental reservations:
newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

So what is the difference between craftiness and wide mental reservations? It seems that craftiness is used with the intent to deceive another for either a good or bad end. The end (deception) would be intended as with lying. A wide mental reservation may fall into the realm of double effect where the evil action (self-deception) is permitted but not intended:
secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doubleeffect.htm
all.org/about/decapp01.htm
Click to expand...
Honestly, I tried to read that stuff and it’s above my head, at least at the concentration level I can muster with all the children home from school now.
For example, hiding jews from those trying to kill them is a morally good action. However, it may also fall into double effect since the action could have two effects: the preservation of lives (good) and the self-deception (evil) of those looking to kill the jews.

For those who object to criteria #2 of the double effect (the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect) saying that the good effect (preservation of life) is obtained by means of the evil effect (allowing self-deception) then please explain why in self-defense the good effect (preseravtion of life) is not being obtained by the evil effect (death of the attacker).
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, I think I agree with you.

Maybe you are teaching me the “proper” way to state my objections.

Are you saying that you don’t understand how killing in self-defense is justified, while lying to protect a life is not? If that’s what you just asked, then I’m all with you on wanted to hear an answer that makes sense.

Alan

[edit] Rereading this post, I see it is very defensive. I will try to soften my attitude some. Thank you all for not getting too excited over this.
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
I think he was just making a joke…whatever the intent, I took no offense, I only laughed:)
Click to expand...
Thank you for sticking up for me. I’ll take that as an act of love, as you were clearly only trying to express in the first place. :love:

I’m glad you did not feel hurt. You may be giving me more credit than I deserve, but that what Christians do. 😉

Alan
 
40.png
dulcissima:
I don’t know, Alan, which life do you value more?

Matthew 16:25
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.

Think about Rachel Scott, the girl who the Cloumbine killers targeted because she was a Christian. She was at school, and these two guys start spraying the place with bullets. She was probably terrified, don’t you think? Then they found her, and put a gun to her head and asked her if she believed in God. Do you think she was scared after that? Do you think she considered lying? She knew which life she valued, and she said yes to God.
Click to expand...
I had not heard her story. Did they spare her? Did she die?

Alan I would have stuck up for you if I read it first. Maybe not everyone knows you sense of humor.
 
40.png
Fitz:
I had not heard her story. Did they spare her? Did she die?
Click to expand...
She died. Shot in the face.

According to the story, her friend told the dead girl’s father that just before being shot, the shooter asked her if she believed in God. The answer came quickly, “yes,” and bang, that shot came quickly too.

Alan
 
40.png
Madia:
Let’s try a hypothetical situation:

First off, do you honestly believe that the nazi’s would take your word for it? If they asked “Are any jews hidden here?” you might say something like “I doubt you’ll believe me so search my house if you want. I honestly think you’re better off looking [insert place where you know jews aren’t]”. Did you utter anything false? Wouldn’t you honestly believe that the nazis are better off looking for jews where there are none? Did you reveal that you have jews hidden there?
Click to expand...
Well, hypotheticals are great until a squad of armed soldiers are standing in your doorway. You lie and get away with it, your family tand the ones you are hiding live another day. Tell the truth or try to be clever as not to tell a bold face lie and get caught, you’re all dead. That little hypothetical might work with a cop on the side of the road but I doubt it would really work with an army.
 
For those that think there is no time to lie, ponder this:

Tobit 5:11-14
11
Tobit asked, “Brother, tell me, please, what family and tribe are you from?”
Click to expand...
12
Raphael said: “Why? Do you need a tribe and a family? Or are you looking for a hired man to travel with your son?” Tobit replied, “I wish to know truthfully whose son you are, brother, and what your name is.”
13
Raphael answered, “I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen.”

14
Tobit exclaimed: “Welcome! God save you, brother! Do not be provoked with me, brother, for wanting to learn the truth about your family. So it turns out that you are a kinsman, and from a noble and good line! I knew Hananiah and Nathaniah, the two sons of Shemaiah the elder; with me they used to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where we would worship together. No, they did not stray from the right path; your kinsmen are good men. You are certainly of good lineage, and welcome!”
Click to expand...
Certainly Raphael lied here, but it didn’t demean Tobit/Tobiah or hurt them, in fact it led to healing and glory for God. So, I not so certain that all lying is intrensically evil…

Food for thought…
 
Are you saying that you don’t understand how killing in self-defense is justified, while lying to protect a life is not?
Click to expand...
Well, a person killing another in self defense can not intend that other person’s death. The attacker’s death may be permitted, not intended. If you lie to someone to protect someone’s life how can you say that you didn’t intend for them to be deceived since the definition of a lie is to speak a falsehood with the intention of deceiving?
Some people might feel that since you killed someone in self defense you intended their death. However, let me pose this example. Someone is climbing up stairs with a heavy set of crystal dishware. However, they lose their footing and let go of the set of dishware to grab onto the railing. They’re able to gain their footing but their dishware is now broken. Do you think that person intended for their dishware to be broken when they let go and grabbed on the railing or merely permitted it to happen?
 
40.png
Madia:
Did you read the footnote?
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/tobias.cfm
Click to expand...
That footnote is not in the NAB, but what is your point? Tobit asks who he is, not who he is impersonating. Later in Tobit, Raphael reveals who he really is, maybe he changes form, but I don’t believe that is the point… Raphael takes the form of Azarius, but he is still Raphael. This is similar to a policeman who is undercover, if the policeman is in the form of a drug dealer, then is he lying when he says he is not a policeman?
 
40.png
Madia:
Well, a person killing another in self defense can not intend that other person’s death. The attacker’s death may be permitted, not intended.
Click to expand...
Chances are that if you kill someone else in self-defense, you pretty much intended it. If you draw a gun on someone, you’re doing it with the intent to kill them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top