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).
“Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”
The sin “boldly” - I’m not sure, but it struck me to recognize that your sin IS a sin. “Oh - it’s not like I’m robbing her, I’m just telling my friends that I think Mary is cheating on her husband because she leaves her house in the middle of the day with lipstick on. I mean, we’re just chatting.”
The above is from Luther's statement. The advice is for situations where there is no option that doesn't involve sin. Luther is not talking about sinning so that grace can abound, but he is talking about living in an imperfect world.
Case in point. The American Revolution was sinful.
Romans 13:1 "Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God."
However, it was also sinful to allow the abusive British rule to continue because of love for the neighbor. So what is the Christian to do?
Not to those afflicted with scrupulosity.
OK--thank you.
BTW--I am not Catholic, but I do not accept anyone's word without studying the Word for myself.
Does this dress make my butt look big?
Yeah.....right.
In which case they will assume you have the information, which you WILL tell them - they haf vays...
Impossible scenario as I very seldom let a moslem come within arm's reach. (and on those rare occasions when I must, I keep them in front of me and keep a wary eye upon them.) I don't like terrorists.
That’s a LIE!
The Gestapo would not have accepted silence as a response. A modern-day equivalent in this country won't accept silence either.
I'll go one further no response would be an admission to the Gestapo that you DID know and not telling. Resulting in being forced to tell.
To add a bit more to the discussion:
https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/houston-we-have-a-problem
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.