Posted on 02/03/2016 6:37:39 AM PST by Salvation
Many of you know that I write the Question and Answer Column for Our Sunday Visitor on both their newspaper side and in their magazine, The Catholic Answer. Every now and then a question comes in that seems like a good topic for the blog.
The following question comes up frequently whenever I teach moral theology classes and we cover the issue of lying. In a way it is remarkable that the format of the question almost never changes, and that the usual (and I would argue questionable) answer has taken such deep root in Catholic thinking.
Here is the question followed by my answer to it. (Note that the answers I provide in that venue are required to be brief.)
Q. Is every lie intrinsically evil? I remember 60 years ago, when the Jesuits were still faithful teachers of Holy Mother Church, being taught that if a person was not entitled to the truth, one could, in fact, lead them away from the truth, by lying. For example, if I knew the hideout of Anne Frank and the Gestapo asked me if I knew her whereabouts, according to this theory, if I said I did not that would [not] be intrinsically evil. Ed S., Muscatine, IA
A: Permit a personal reply to this, with the understanding that reasonable people may differ with some aspects of my answer.
Unfortunately, the approach that you cite is a widespread notion related to a questionable concept called "mental reservation." I call it "unfortunate" because it seems to say that a lie is not a lie.
But in the common example you cite, you clearly would be lying since it meets the definition of lying: speaking that which is untrue with the intention of deceiving. Indeed, the entire purpose of the lie is to deceive the officials by saying what is untrue.
It will be granted that the situation described is dreadful and fearsome. But I, like many moral theologians, am not prepared to say that it is not a lie simply because the situation is fearful and the authorities are bad people.
Perhaps the better approach is to say that it is a lie and that, as a lie, it is intrinsically wrong. However, when one is under duress or sees no clear way to avoid a consequent grave evil or injustice, one's culpability for such a lie is lessened. It seems rather doubtful that God would make a big deal of the sort of lie you describe on Judgment Day.
But to call any lie good or justifiable is to harm a moral principle unnecessarily. Call it what it is: a lie. It is not good. And it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may come of it.
With this in mind it is better to say that what you describe would constitute a lie, lamentable but understandable. And given the gravity of the situation, there would not likely much if any blame incurred.
Life sometimes presents us with difficulties that are not easily overcome. But to adjust moral principles to accommodate anomalies is to engage in a kind of casuistry that does harm to moral principles. Sometimes the best we can do is to shrug humbly and say, "Well it's wrong to lie, but let's trustingly leave the judgment on this one up to God, who knows our struggles and will surely factor in the fearsome circumstances."
So there's my view, succinctly stated. There was no room in the column to address the questions that might arise based on my answer, but I will do so here:
OK, now it's your turn. But before answering, remember your Catechism:
A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving ... To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error ... The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity (CCC 2482 - 2484).
I took an ethics course when in college years ago, and the textbook was “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” by Sissela Bok.
Now, I didn’t know it at the time, but Sissela Bok is pretty much a Lib (as is her more famous husband, Derek Bok) but one always has to take these books with a grain of salt.
That said, I had to admit there were scenarios, not to hard to conjure up, when I decided I would lie and not feel any pangs of conscience over doing so.
The problem is, the scenarios will differ between people, and it is those areas of variation that are problematic.
Also problematic is the definition of a lie or deception. Is intentional omission of information not specifically asked for a form of lying? And so on.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=112964
“2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
Based on this, I am sure that all would agree that a suspect is not entitled to the truth. For one thing, if the truth was completely known, there would be little need to question the suspect.
Then the question comes is there ever a reason where deception is legitimate. For an easy answer, I’ll ask a rhetorical question.
It is well documented that during WWII, the Pope aided in the protection of Jews. Many times he told the Nazi’s that he wasn’t harboring or cooperating in the escape and protection of Jews. If he had told the “truth”, he, many Christians and many Jews would have been slaughtered.
The moral justification for the Pope’s “lie” is grounded in three realities:
1) The Nazi’s had no legitimate right to the truth as they intended to use the truth for immoral purposes- the genocide of Jews.
2) The effect of telling the truth would be a cooperation with knowledge and consent to the doing of evil.
3) One can never be forced to do evil against their will and under duress one can take any action necessary and appropriate (proporationate) to remove the the duress.
Now let’s go to the question at hand. As I said earlier, the suspect isn’t entitled to the truth (or whatever facts are known). But is there justification in using deception similar to the Pope’s active use of deception of the Nazi’s in an effort to gain truthful information from a suspect?
For an answer to this I’d like to introduce the Principle of the Double Effect: This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.
Formulation of the Principle. Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result. Supporters of the principle argue that, in situations of “double effect” where all these conditions are met, the action under consideration is morally permissible despite the bad result.
Another justification for this can be found in the Just War Theory. Like the Pope was engaged in legitimate war with the Nazi’s, a legitimate government has the right to protect itself and its citizens. From this right, certain exceptions from absolute prohibitions become morally permissable. For instance, innocent civilians can be killed so long as the action served a proportionate military purpose and proportionate action had been taken to mitigate the civilian deaths. Similarly, the police in the performance of their legitimate duty to protect the citizens are morally permitted to use “military” tactics that otherwise would be considered immoral by individuals.
Another concept that is applicable in this case (and potentially most persuasive) is the concept of legitimate self defense. Criminals place society under duress. The legitimate pursuit of protecting society allows for extra-ordinary actions that will relieve society of the duress. As the legitimate representative of society, the police are authorized to take proportionate action that will result in the removal of the duress (the incarceration of criminals). “
If a crazed Islamic jihadist had you in her grasp with a knife at your throat and demanded to know if you were a devout Muslim, would you say “yes” or would you say “no”, knowing that if you said no, she would cut your head off right then and there?
To me, all one has to do is find one single scenario in which it is acceptable to lie, and the question “Is it Ever OK to Lie?” is answered fully.
I believe there are scenarios, so the answer to that question is yes...it is sometimes okay to lie.
I understand exactly what you mean, but it does beg the question: Should Peter have lied, where telling the truth put him at great risk?
What do you think the Holy Martyrs did?
No, whether or not dishonesty is wrong depends on the context. It's not wrong to lie to criminals or Nazis and the like in cases where your God-given natural rights are in danger of being violated.
Yes, and as scriptural evidence I offer Rebekah and Rahab, as well as Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom from recent history.
It’s safe to say the Msgr. has never been married........”Honey, does this dress make my butt look fat?”
What good does it do to speculate on that now?
In Parochial school, we were taught that a *lie of omission * is perfectly OK.
As in **No, my mother can’t come to the phone; she’s busy cooking dinner.**
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Is it sinful to tell someone a lie in an effort to preserve cover if you’re a policeman or a spy doing work ordered by a legitimate government authority?
Shralp
Dear Shralp,
The Catechism states that lying is never to be allowed (#2485) since the only purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. It is important to note, however that the Catechism is written for the ordinary Catholic in ordinary situations. Some theologians warn that there are extraordinary occasions where to tell the truth could cause a greater harm than the harm done by withholding it. Such would be the extraordinary occasions where a life or many lives can lie in the balance as the result of the truth an undercover agent conveys or chooses not to convey.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=61773&highlight=lying+catechism+ordinary
Tell the truth. Your reward will be in heaven for witnessing to Jesus Christ.
Good point about lying to your mother in hospice. I agree it is an act of mercy under those circumstances.
Also, I remember reading that a Rabbi said it is permissible to tell a bride she is beautiful even if she is not.
I caught a fish <-———————(<———>)———————> this big!
The religious aspect. You bought up religion and lying to save oneself. I thought it was an appropriate (and interesting) parallel, but if you don’t think so, it won’t offend me or anything like that.
I really wasn’t trying to set some kind of theological trap!
Ask Cruzie.
Just because he’s Martin Luther doesn’t mean he gets a pass on everything he says.
As a Catholic, I do not give Luther a pass on everything he says. I was just providing the full text for your consideration, rather than an out of context excerpt. Make of it what you will.
Interesting he doesn’t reference the Word but the man-made catechism instead.
God “lies”. In Bible Study we had some thing on that, and the ethics of it all. One of which was lying to protect the Jews in your German basement.
Some examples in the Bible. The whole Exodus thing. It starts off with God telling Moses to tell Pharaoh that they need to go out into the desert to do sacrifices and worship, and that once that is done you’ll come back. That request is repeated after each plague. (So that might have been the deception of war type thing).
Another one(?) was where the disciples ask Jesus to go to some city with them, and Jesus says “Oh no - you guys go. I’m not going.” And then the next day or something Jesus shows up in the city! Although Jesus may have meant - I’m not going now. I don’t recall any greater purpose behind the “lie”. Heck - maybe Jesus just changed His mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.