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).
Remember the Commandment, though: "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Given the society we live in and how we conservatives are viewed by social workers, I’ve been telling my kids to lie to authority figures from Day 1...that is unless they want to be getting brand new parents.
In war, yes.
It’s not OK to lie when you don’t have to.
Imagine the Gestapo is asking you for info about your family. Are you supposed to tell them the factual truth?
"...against thy neighbor."
A very specific kind of lie. And completely unjustifiable. In the given Ann Frank example, I do not believe that commandment would apply.
In the example of Anne Frank, given in the OP, the proper response would be no response.
Its ok to lie when somebody has been wounded badly and they want your opinion. They ask just tell them they look good you’ll be ok. Tell them it’s not that bad even though their buddies are freaking out just looking at them trying not to show it on their faces.
It is never okay to lie. If necessary to avoid the truth for safety reasons, etc. deflection or avoidance should be used, imo. But not out and out lying.
That depends on who you’d be lying to.
“Imagine the Gestapo is asking you for info about your family. Are you supposed to tell them the factual truth?”
Yep, when doctors ask irrelevant questions like stuff from the past and whether one owns guns, one should SERIOUSLY consider lying, as we have NO CLUE as to where that data is going and how it may be used against us.
Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologica.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
is the Msgr confused on this?
it would be okay to kill the person seeking the Ann Frank but not lie to them?
I would lie to Obama’s face if he started asking me questions about things that are none of his damned business.
“you did a good thing for a bad person” Robert DeNiro in A Bronx Tale :) his son lied about a murder to protect a gangster. the kid was 8.
is it living a lie when i type geez and sheessh and good grief when i would NEVER use those words in real life.
unfortunately the one i would use are bad.
Do these pants make me look fat?
Truth: “No.”
Unspoken truth: “No. It’s your big but that makes you look fat. Those pants just don’t hide it”.
In life we are often caught between two impossible choices. Taking, what we consider to be, the lesser sin is still sin. Just relax and follow Martin Luther's advice. "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly."
It is better to regret the sin, than to try and rationalize why you had to sin. It has nothing to do with God understanding why he had to sin. It is all about God forgiving our sin. No matter the sin, or why you had to do the sin, forgiveness is still needed.
If the terrorists ask you if you’re the only one at home, and the children are hiding in the closet, you’re going to tell the truth?
That's the worst advice I've ever heard--and it's totally anti-scriptural.
I would like to be able to take the self-righteous position and say, no.. it’s never Ok. But that would be... a lie. I do believe there are more than a few situations when telling a lie is required. It shouldn’t be for personal gain or any other needless reason though. I also believe this is one thing that sets people apart from one another... how far will you go to justify a lie to yourself? I’ve always found that being brutally honest with ones self is far more difficult... and an absolute necessity.
An infantry division in WW2 had a commander who forbade gambling. He happened to stumble onto three chaplains playing cards. The chaplains had been discussing this very question during their weekly poker game.
Only one of them just could not bring himself to admit it would ever be OK to lie.
Two of the chaplains denied they had been playing poker when asked. When the third one was asked if he had been playing poker, he responded by asking, “With who?”
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.