I was flippin’ through the channels this morning and came across yet another live car chase on FOX News. I had other fish to fry, but just before I switched the TV off, the play-by-play guyreporter remarked that the police were likely telling the bad guy in the pursued vehicle anything they could think of that might make him give up. Police negotiators are allowed to say anything at all if it will save lives or cut short an unstable situation, even if it is 180 degrees opposite of the truth.
I have also watched numerous episodes of NYPD Blue, so I know that police interrogators are allowed to say things like "Your accomplice gave you up already. He says you made him do it. He’s singing like a canary… " even if it is not true. In other words, the police are allowed to lie. In certain situations I suppose it would even be considered a professional duty to lie, say to save the life of a hostage.
Now, obviously, this brought to mind Rahab, the lying prostitute back in the Old Testament (sorry, I’m not much for chapter and verse). She lied to save the good guys in the story (a couple of spies from Israel) and was rewarded by having her life spared later.
So, this all got me thinking, which is a dangerous thing. What sort of ethical, moral and spiritual problems might a devout Catholic police officer have about lying in the course of performing his/her job? Is it permissable from a moral standpoint? Is it even meritorious in certain circumstances? Would they have to go to confession after telling a whopper to a kidnapping suspect?
You might think that I ask these questions in a rhetorical fashion only in order to provide the answers later in the post. Nope.
I’m asking because I really don’t know. Now, I suspect that, yeah, in certain circumstances it might be considered not only morally permissable, but commendable to lie in certain life-or-death type siuations. BUT, I just don’t know. Much as I hate to punt on this, I will leave it to Jimmy and some of the better informed readers to handle this one. My head hurts…
Well, not really…
One is permitted to lie in order to save a life; e.g. a Christian lying to Nazis about where the Jews are. I read this while studying the Ten Commandments – although I can’t remember if it was a section of the Catechism or what have you.
I would recommend the book Lying–Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. The author, Sissela Bok looks into many of those hard questions you mention above.
Here is a quote from Bacon in “Of Truth” that opens the concluding chapter:
Certainly, it is heaven upon earth to have a man’s mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.
There’s a rather interesting article on New Advent about the so called ‘permissible lying’ argument.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
FWIW, I would lie to save a life.
God Bless.
One is permitted to lie in order to save a life; e.g. a Christian lying to Nazis about where the Jews are.
Nope. It is never permitted to lie. One may use a mental reservation (telling the truth, or part of it, in a way that the questioner doesn’t gain any useful information), or one can answer a standard “I don’t know”; but if one is keeping Jews in one’s home, and a Nazi asks if one is keeping Jews in one’s home, one cannot answer “no.” One might answer, “Why would I be keeping Jews in my home? I could be killed for keeping Jews in my home!” but one can never directly lie.
The first edition of the Catechism seemed to make an allowance for lying under some circumstances, but this was changed in the second edition.
Now, obviously, this brought to mind Rahab, the lying prostitute back in the Old Testament (sorry, I’m not much for chapter and verse). She lied to save the good guys in the story (a couple of spies from Israel) and was rewarded by having her life spared later.
Yea, but we don’t look so favorably on Judas, who was lying about knowing Jesus (denying Jesus) to save his own life. And martyrs are often martyrs because they refuse to save their own lives by lying about their faith or recanting it.
I would tend to think that the moral to Rahab’s story and the reason for her being rewarded is more complicated.
I tend to think that lying (even to save yourself, or to save others) is wrong, or at least that we’re called to higher actions.
I would not lie to save a life (eg, a Jew from the nazis). Life is not the greatest good. The glory of God is. How can we give glory to God while sinning against him?
We can kill in self-defence, but we can’t lie in the same circumstance?
I don’t have the citation with me (I’m at work) but the Church Fathers asked this questions during the persecutions. They wondered whether it was acceptable to lie to a Roman judge and say “I’m no Christian, etc.” Many felt this was apostasy, even if not meant. Others (the prevailing side by the way) felt that this was acceptable if it meant saving a life. Can anyone help me out on this one? Was it Tertullian? Pretty clear teaching though.
It’s pretty clear from the Catechism (especially as revised in 1997) that one can’t lie, period, though one can sometimes mislead (i.e., without telling an objective falsehood) someone who doesn’t have a right to the truth.
And this is different from killing in self defense. Killing, to be moral, has to be a “double effect” – “outside of one’s intention.” But lying to save a life is, by definition, intended as a means. That’s the key difference.
“We can kill in self-defence, but we can’t lie in the same circumstance?
These are two completely different things. Death is a natural evil. Lying is a moral evil. God is the author of natural evil, but never moral evil. He has given us permission to kill; never to lie.
Killing is what’s known as a morally neutral action — there are situations where it can be moral (self-defense) or immoral (murder).
Lying is not a morally neutral action; a lie is always wrong. The question is whether or not what’s being said fits the technical definition of a lie. I believe there was a school of thought that for something to be a lie, it has to be a direct non-truth told to someone who has the right or legitimate authority to know. I’m not sure if that’s valid or not.
Another school believes a statement isn’t a lie so long as you are answering what you believe to be the question implied by the actions or asking of the other. Example: Nazi asks if there are Jews in the basement. What he really means is, “are there Jews in your basement that I can kill?” You answer no, meaning “no, there are no Jews in my basement which you are permitted to kill.”
The Nazi isn’t asking the entire question, but you are answering it truthfully. You are therefore not accountable for the Nazi’s false question, or for lying.
Valid? Again, I don’t know. Jimmy, where are you?!
Isn’t lying the witholding of truth from someone who has a *right to know*? If a mugger asks me if I had any more money hidden somewhere in my belongings, does he have a right to know that?
It would seem that if someone has no right to the truth, you are under no obligation to give it to him. In the case of the Jews, saying something aside from no might be exactly the same as “Sure, yeah, go on up! Can I get you some drinks?” The Gestapo isn’t stupid.
I’d really like to hear what Jimmy has to say about this…
There are some situations where lying is not only permissable but neccessary. If you lie to save someone’s life that is usually fine (but depends on what you are lying about)
The SUBJECT of the lie I think is also very important. It is not good to tell the Secret Police that you and your buddy here are NOT Catholic (when you obviously are) because that’s denying your own God to save your life. Not cool. But if you lie to him about where your buddy is hiding…that’s neccessary. You should not betray your friend. ‘Tell the truth and shame the devil’ doesn’t apply here.
Now decieving a criminal in order to save more lives that he might take or save hostages…that’s TOTALLY permissible but it, again, depends on the subject.
So I think that the lie depends on ‘why’ as much as ‘what’.
That’s just my quickly thought out idea.
The Bible passage is in Joshua 2, BTW. The Office of Readings has been from Joshua lately.
FWIW, Martin Luther’s opinion: “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” 🙂
It would seem that if someone has no right to the truth, you are under no obligation to give it to him.
That’s true, but you still cannot lie to him. You can use mental reservation, but you can’t lie. You can remain silent, change the subject, etc., but you can’t lie.
There are some situations where lying is not only permissable but neccessary. If you lie to save someone’s life that is usually fine (but depends on what you are lying about)
Lying is not only never necessary, it is never permissible.
With respect to the “those who have the right to know” argument, that phrase was dropped from the revised Catechism.
“Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)
Does God lie?
’tis only a lie if the person you are “lying” to has a right to the truth. The standards for having a right to the truth are low. The Nazi in question has no right to the truth.
Er…could you explain to me how lying is never necessary, Lauda? I’d say that it’s necessary to save the Jews, and that the Gestapo are smart enough to know something is amiss if you comment on the weather instead of answering their question.
God doesn’t eat either. Does that mean we shouldn’t eat? I don’t think that argument works…
I’d say that it’s necessary to save the Jews
Why is it necessary? Life is not something we worship. Yes, it is very precious. But we have here no lasting home. It is better for a man to die than to commit any sin, mortal or venial.
’tis only a lie if the person you are “lying” to has a right to the truth. The standards for having a right to the truth are low. The Nazi in question has no right to the truth.
Right, which means you don’t have to tell him the truth — but you still can’t lie to him. Check the revised Catechism and you will see. For that matter, check the Catholic Encyclopedia article referenced above, the Catechism of St. Pius X (available on Jimmy’s web site), or any moral theologian.
Er…could you explain to me how lying is never necessary, Lauda?
Lying is a sin, and it is never necessary to sin.
I’d say that it’s necessary to save the Jews, and that the Gestapo are smart enough to know something is amiss if you comment on the weather instead of answering their question.
It might be “necessary” to save the Jews, but if the price is the well-being of your own soul then it clearly can never be justified.
God doesn’t eat either. Does that mean we shouldn’t eat? I don’t think that argument works…
Eating isn’t a sin. And Our Lord ate while He was on the earth, and He is God. 😉
Well, no one has mentioned this one yet, so here goes.
MANY people have been involved in Bible smuggling into countries that deny the existence of truth, aside from the ruling party, and the existence of God. Yet, they know that the Bible can change people’s lives.
In wanting to absolutely control the population, the government makes it illegal to worship God, own a Bible, pornography, drugs or weapons.
So, when entering the totalitarian country to bring God’s word to underground churches and pastors, a courier must be prepared to lie. They are asked if they have any pornography, Bibles, drugs or weapons. If they have no pornography, a few thousand bibles, no drugs and no weapons, they are prepared to answer “NO”.
This answer is based upon the premise, listed above, that if those in control are not living in truth, then we have the right to bring truth to those that are being kept from the truth. If their entire system is based upon lies, then is it wrong to lie to them?
I know that there is a “book” answer and that each one has a different opinion and also their own individual conscience to live with.
But, yes, Rahad is listed in Hebrews as one in the “Hall of Faith” for her lying, to save the spies and enable God’s plan to be fullfilled; for the people to enter the promised land.
Great discussion above and yes, it is not an easy or “pat” answer.
For those who say it’s OK to tell a lie where doing so is “necessary” to save Jews from Nazis, I can only quote Ven. John H. Newman: “The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one signle venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”
This is not a fringe position, but reflects the consensus of Catholic moralists from the earliest times.
This answer is based upon the premise, listed above, that if those in control are not living in truth, then we have the right to bring truth to those that are being kept from the truth. If their entire system is based upon lies, then is it wrong to lie to them?
Yes. One is not permitted to do evil in order to bring about a good.
Seamus-
Without taking a position Newman’s statement (above), I do have to point out his qualifier “without excuse” at the end. That is, as they say, the crux of the matter.
LJD and others…
… then I am truly perplexed about the inerrancy of Scripture and Rahab held up as an example of faith as one who “did evil” to bring about a good.
and yes, this was in todays Office of Readings in the liturgy of the hours.
Jimmy!!! Help… what say you?
I remember St. John Chrysostom’s belief that you could tell people a lie in order to benefit them. I think that’s actually called “the beneficial lie”. Then again, St. Augustine said to tell the truth no matter the consequences.
I have never thought about reinterpreting the question in one’s own mind, thus rendering a lie not a lie. (The “Do you have any Jews I can kill?” model.) That seems far more deceptive because it calls on the listener to reinterpret reality.
I suppose for my own part, I was taught not to answer at all and walk away. Which usually left the asker to interpret my answer the way he saw fit… and led to many fistfights.
I think perhaps that “without excuse” refers to stealing. Stealing can be morally justified in order to provide for oneself or others when in extreme need. For example, if my children are starving, then I am permitted to steal food sufficient to feed them. In fact I don’t think such is even “stealing” since I am taking what is mine by right (my children and I have a right to eat).
This is from the Catechism of St. Pius X on Jimmy’s other site:
8 Q: In what cases may another’s goods be taken without sin?
A: When the owner consents or even when he unjustly refuses. Thus, one in extreme necessity may take another’s goods without sin, provided that he takes only so much as is absolutely necessary to relieve pressing and extreme need. [my emphasis]
This is also from the Catechism of St. Pius X:
6 Q: What is a lie?
A: A lie is a sin which consists in asserting as true or false by word or act that which one does not believe to be really the case.
7 Q: How many kinds of lies are there?
A: There are three kinds: The jocose lie, the officious lie, and the malicious lie.
8 Q: What is a jocose lie?
A: A jocose lie is that which is told in jest and without injury to anyone.
9 Q: What is an officious lie?
A: An officious lie is a false statement to benefit oneself or another without injuring anyone else.
10 Q: What is a malicious lie?
A: A malicious lie is a false statement made to the injury of another.
11 Q: Is it ever lawful to tell a lie?
A: It is never lawful to tell a lie, neither in joke, nor for one’s own benefit, nor for the benefit of another, because a lie is always bad in itself. [my emphasis]
12 Q: What kind of sin is a lie?
A: A lie when jocose or officious is a venial sin; but when malicious it is a mortal sin if the harm done is grave.
13 Q: Is it always necessary to say all one’s mind?
A: It is not always necessary, especially when he who questions you has no right to know what he demands. [This is what the moralists call mental reservation.]
Tim J.
yes. the crux.
Little correction to my last post: I meant Peter, not Judas. Had a horrible and tired allergy day (had to take two showers to get pollen off of myself) and feel non-functional. My husband said, “You lost all credibility with that mistake!” It was a brain-fart, tho 😉
zzzzzzzzzz Lurker
Lurker-
My deepest sympathies. I am recovering from a lingering sinus infection/brochitis and have been in a fog for over a week, actually forgetting what day it was a couple of times, with frustrating and embarassing results.
then I am truly perplexed about the inerrancy of Scripture and Rahab held up as an example of faith as one who “did evil” to bring about a good.
The Jews and the Gentiles of that time were held to a different standard. Rahab, for example, lived among pagans who likely thought nothing of telling a “beneficial lie.” In particular, neither the Jews nor the Gentiles had received the fullness of Revelation; the Gentiles had likely received nothing of Revelation at all.
Isn’t lying the witholding of truth from someone who has a *right to know*? If a mugger asks me if I had any more money hidden somewhere in my belongings, does he have a right to know that?
No, not a right, but you should be truthful to him because lying is wrong, not because he deserves the truth. Thinking in terms of people having rights and fair/unfair isn’t really relevant.
Right. You don’t have to tell him “Yes I do!” (you can say, “None of your business!”) but you can’t say “No I don’t!”
LJD –
I hear you… but my point hasn’t been addressed.
It would be one thing for us to read about Rahab in the “OLD” Testament. (by the way, she mentions that she knows that the LORD is real!!! and that is why she will do anything to help the spies).
“..the LORD your God is he who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.” Joshua 2.12
But, then why is her story held up to Christians (where there is neither Jew or Gentile)as an example of faith for when we are discouraged or lacking faith? Hebrews 11 says that she and all those listed there did the righteous thing and are honoured for it.
“For by it (faith) the men of old received divine approval.” Hebrews 11.2
“By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.” Hebrews 11.31
This scripture implies that Rahab’s friendly welcome to the spies included her protecting their identity there (by lying).
Jimmy? your silence on this post is deafening 🙂
The scene… there are Jews hiding in my house, this is a crime. A Nazi officer is in my house…
The dialog…
Nazi: ” Are you hiding any Jews in this house?”
Quasimodo: “There are no Jews in this house.”
Lauda: “what do you mean ‘Jews’?”
Lauda: “Which house?”
Lauda: “That depends on your definition of ‘in'”
Lauda: “Who me?”
Lauda: “You mean right now?”
Lauda: “So who’s hiding?”
Lauda: “Search me.”
What are you going to say to him that is not the truth and also not a lie?
I’ll ‘lie’ and throw myself on God’s mercy. But, there is no lie because the Nazi has no right to the truth in this case.
I’ll ‘lie’ and throw myself on God’s mercy. But, there is no lie because the Nazi has no right to the truth in this case.
As St. Pius X explains, it is an “officious lie” and it is a venial sin.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited above, St. John Chrysostom taught that it was permissible to lie to others for their own benefit. I would be interested to see if those promoting the “necessary lie” can cite an approved Catholic moralist who holds that lying to benefit oneself or others is permissible.
I’ll ‘lie’ and throw myself on God’s mercy. But, there is no lie because the Nazi has no right to the truth in this case.
Again we have, “They have no right to the truth”. Who are we to judge who has a right to the truth? Everyone has a right to the truth. We aren’t the ones to judge who is too evil to handle The Truth/God. What people have a “right” to is totally irrelevant! And, we do God much glory if we stand up for the truth, whatever the consequences might be!
If what people have a right to is relevant, then why isn’t it wrong to abort a baby because “he/she *deserves* a better life than what this crack-wh*** can give him/her?” But, but but… Stop for a second. Stop. Stop. Re-read that last part before you go on….
…
What’s “fair” or “unfair” is irrelevant! “Rights” have no place when it comes to God’s will. And to give up on someone intent on sinning is just to fall to the dark side where they are (and besides, who couldn’t abuse that trick when they wanted to?) God clearly doesn’t want that! Watch what you wish for, if you think that anyone can be allowed to lie when they feel it’s for a greater good. Even as Catholics, we’ll disagree on what’s a greater good. Let’s not condone lying as an easy way out of things, because that’s what it would amount to.
Would we have martyrs if the eighth commandment were to be taken lightly?
Be careful of equating morality with “entitlement”. “They don’t deserve to know the truth” is just an unsettling attitude. It doesn’t show faith in God and His ability to bring forth good from evil.
Sentiment might be getting in the way here. If everyone thought like this, Peter would have been right to lie about knowing Jesus to save a life (his own life). Sentiment might just be getting in the way of what God really wants.
I used to think that it was silly for martyrs to tell the truth about being Christians/Catholics. “What good they would have done with their lives if only they had lived!” I thought. “They must have had a case of the scruples! They could have just lied and worked for God undercover!”
No, I learned better. It doesn’t work that way. If people die, trust in God to work with that.
Trusting in God to deal with lying is more like the sin of “providence”.
Rahab is not the only instance. There is the angel that goes to confuse/lie, Jehu in the assembeling of the Baal worshipers, and one of David’s flights from Saul (though that arguably could be seen as having a negative affect).
I believe Jimmy did have a post on this earlier…2 months or so ago if I remember correctly.
Some things to look at:
1.) Is there a good beneficial goal?
2.) Is the hearer entitled to the truth?
3.) Why not use misdirection? (Rahab’s comments *could* be implied as misdirection…after all the spies could have wandered off. She didn’t *know*.)
With our lack of omniscience (3) is usually pretty easy to pull off.
Rahab said, they are not here, they have left. True… out the window and up onto the roof.
LJD – I think here is where “with (sic) excuse” comes in. And this is why I don’t like situation ethics. Until one is IN the situation, all points are moot.
What would the “approved” Catholic moralist say, who lived under a totalitarian regime and was a member of an underground persecuted church, where each member had ONE page of the Bible?
The missionary courier that has risked very much to bring his pastor a suitcase full of Bibles arrives and opens up the suitcase… and each member of the church bursts into tears because in their life they have not even seen ONE complete Bible.
Would he confront the courier and reprove him for his sin or refuse to accept the Bibles he has risked much for to bring to him?
If the courier quoted Joshua and Hebrews for his inspiration, believed that he/she was obeying God’s missionary commands… how would the “approved” persecuted Catholic moralist respond?
Would an “approved” Catholic moralist be a member of a persecuted church to begin with? Would he/she notify the authorities that this foreigner had broken the law by smuggling scriptures into the country AND by making contact with locals?
What would he/she say is permissible?
LDJ: “Eating isn’t a sin. And Our Lord ate while He was on the earth, and He is God. ;-)”
This is circular reasoning, in which you assume lying is a sin to prove that lying is a sin. Lying is a sin, so therefore God doesn’t lie, and because God doesn’t lie, it is a sin.
Other example: Did/does God read novels written in English? Does God eat pizza? Does God ride a bike? Are those things sinful because God doesn’t do them?
About rights…doesn’t the Church state that all humans have a right to life, or a right not to be murdered in the womb? I think Catholics do acknowledge some rights.
Also, again, the Gestapo and the mugger aren’t stupid. As quasimodo said, saying things like “None of your business” is really equivalent (practically speaking) to “Sure! Take ’em off to the death camp and gas ’em, because you have a right to the truth!”
“What are you going to say to him that is not the truth and also not a lie?”
Nazi: ” Are you hiding any Jews in this house?”
Quasimodo: “There are no Jews in this house.”
Lauda: “Oh we’re not that kind of people. Come in and see for yourself–it’s just us here.”
What he’s looking for is not a “yes” or a “no” anyway. What he’s looking for is how nervous you are in your reply.
Mugger: “Do you have any money in your purse?”
Liar: “No”
Lauda: “Who would be stupid enough to carry money in this neighborhood?”
Again, your tone is key. It’s not like if you say “Uuhh..no!” He’s gonna just leave.
I also think “Get the hell away from me” would be my first response whether or not I actually had any valuables.
However, I still don’t know the answer to the overall question. Because even though I think in many cases (as I listed two above) you can get away just fine with mental reservation, what about the smuggling Bibles question?
Again, I think defining “lie” is key. While reforming a question in your mind may be deceptive, I don’t recall any directives against deception. Mental reservation is deceptive. Lying is wrong, deception is the name we give to the condition when someone has been tricked, not necessarily lied to.
St. Thomas More invoked the need for man to live by his wits, “in the tangle of his mind.” We are supposed to be clever. We are supposed to obey the rules, but not be stupid about it.
Let’s consider the classic “jump on the grenade” scenario. The soldier that jumps on the grenade to save his buddies isn’t guilty of suicide even though the result is almost certainly his death. Rather, his intention is to save lives. His life ending is simply an unfortunate byproduct of his morally good decision.
However, if that soldier’s intention was in any way to end his own life, he is to some degree culpable.
A similar situation results when considering the issue of who has a right to what. The also classic “baby with gun pointed at him” scenario. A man in your house aims a gun into your newborn’s crib. You have a gun yourself. You can shoot that guy, not because your intention is not to end his life by your own judgement, but to save another’s life. That man’s killing isn’t murder because your intention wasn’t to kill him; his death is the unfortunate byproduct of his giving up the right to live by his actions.
The state can do it in certain circumstances, the soldier in war can do it, and in very rare but still possible situations, the private citizen can do it to, because the state and the soldier, by their lack of presence in your home, have failed to protect your family. It is now your job.
These are more or less clearly accepted lines of reasoning. Can I lie to the Nazi, then, if my intention is to save the Jew but not deceive the Nazi, knowing that deception of the Nazi is the unfortunate byproduct?
I don’t know. The other scenarios are physical examples — soldier jumps toward ground, grenade gets in the way; parent fires gun to protect baby, bullet happens to run into killer. Or again, the ectopic pregnancy — doctor removes part of fallopian tube, tiny baby happens to be in that part of the tube. The direct, physical action is not directed at the harm of an individual. As I said, I don’t know if that same reasoning would apply to an intangible like lying.
What I do know is that yes, every human being should be ready to make “tough choices”, and decide things to the best of their ability at the time. It is our job to be prepared to decide issues that fall within our responsibility, as parents, soldiers, doctors, presidents, or whatever.
Finally, if it is a lie to say that to the Nazi, we all know God won’t judge us harshly if, on the spur of the moment, we lie to the Nazi as a gut reaction when our entire being is filled with the thought “gotta save those Jews!” That would likely be considered extreme duress.
I’m not a theologian, so don’t take any of this as “gospel”. I’m trying to remember my moral theology classes . . .
Darnit Jimmy! Come back!
“Are you a policeman?”
Whatever else Syme had expected, he had never expected anything so brutal and actual as this. Even his great presence of mind could only manage a reply with an air of rather blundering jocularity.
“A policeman?” he said, laughing vaguely. “Whatever made you think of a policeman in connection with me?”
“The process was simple enough,” answered the Professor patiently. “I thought you looked like a policeman. I think so now.”
“Did I take a policeman’s hat by mistake out of the restaurant?” asked Syme, smiling wildly. “Have I by any chance got a number stuck on to me somewhere? Have my boots got that watchful look? Why must I be a policeman? Do, do let me be a postman.”
The old Professor shook his head with a gravity that gave no hope, but Syme ran on with a feverish irony.
“But perhaps I misunderstood the delicacies of your German philosophy. Perhaps policeman is a relative term. In an evolutionary sense, sir, the ape fades so gradually into the policeman, that I myself can never detect the shade. The monkey is only the policeman that may be. Perhaps a maiden lady on Clapham Common is only the policeman that might have been. I don’t mind being the policeman that might have been. I don’t mind being anything in German thought.”
“Are you in the police service?” said the old man, ignoring all Syme’s improvised and desperate raillery. “Are you a detective?”
Syme’s heart turned to stone, but his face never changed.
“Your suggestion is ridiculous,” he began. “Why on earth — ”
The old man struck his palsied hand passionately on the rickety table, nearly breaking it.
“Did you hear me ask a plain question, you pattering spy?” he shrieked in a high, crazy voice. “Are you, or are you not, a police detective?”
“No!” answered Syme, like a man standing on the hangman’s drop.
“You swear it,” said the old man, leaning across to him, his dead face becoming as it were loathsomely alive. “You swear it! You swear it! If you swear falsely, will you be damned? Will you be sure that the devil dances at your funeral? Will you see that the nightmare sits on your grave? Will there really be no mistake? You are an anarchist, you are a dynamiter! Above all, you are not in any sense a detective? You are not in the British police?”
He leant his angular elbow far across the table, and put up his large loose hand like a flap to his ear.
“I am not in the British police,” said Syme with insane calm.
Professor de Worms fell back in his chair with a curious air of kindly collapse.
“That’s a pity,” he said, “because I am.”
Should have put a spoiler alert with that. Oh well.
This is circular reasoning, in which you assume lying is a sin to prove that lying is a sin. Lying is a sin, so therefore God doesn’t lie, and because God doesn’t lie, it is a sin.
No, actually, I am not depending on the fact that God doesn’t lie (in fact, since God is Truth, He cannot lie) to show that lying is a sin. I’m depending on the teaching of the Church, which is reiterated in the revised edition of the new Catechism (as well as in the Catechism of St. Pius X which I cited). As another example, I know from the teaching of the Church that lust is a sin; therefore I know that God could never lust; but I do not depend on the fact that God cannot lust to show that lust is a sin. I am not going from A to B to get back to A; I am simply concluding B from A.
I find it interesting that no one on this blog who claims that lying can be justified can cite any authority other than himself.
What would the “approved” Catholic moralist say, who lived under a totalitarian regime and was a member of an underground persecuted church, where each member had ONE page of the Bible?
He would say that lying is not permitted.
The missionary courier that has risked very much to bring his pastor a suitcase full of Bibles arrives and opens up the suitcase… and each member of the church bursts into tears because in their life they have not even seen ONE complete Bible.
Would he confront the courier and reprove him for his sin or refuse to accept the Bibles he has risked much for to bring to him?
He would accept the Bibles (because one is permitted to rejoice at the results of sin — for example, one can rejoice at the end of a war even if it is brought about by nuclear bombardment against civilian centers), and, if the courier told him how he brought them into the country, he would reprove him for his sin.
If the courier quoted Joshua and Hebrews for his inspiration, believed that he/she was obeying God’s missionary commands… how would the “approved” persecuted Catholic moralist respond?
That lying is never permissible; that Rahab had never received any Revelation from God and that He expects more of us.
Would an “approved” Catholic moralist be a member of a persecuted church to begin with? Would he/she notify the authorities that this foreigner had broken the law by smuggling scriptures into the country AND by making contact with locals?
No need to say “he/she”; an approved moralist is very likely to be a priest. As far as notifying the authorities is concerned, I would doubt it very much. The problem isn’t that the courier broke the law, which is an unjust law and is therefore null and void, the problem is that the courier lied. Don’t confuse the two issues.
What about acting? Is that lying? Why, or why not? After all, technical untruths may come out of your mouth.
LJD.
The scripture teaches that no one can know or be aware of God unless God enlightens that person’s mind. How can you say that Rahab did not receive revelation from God when she declares that he is lord of heaven above and earth below?
Again, if God expects more of us… why did God allow the NT book of Hebrews to be in the canon of Scripture? Rahab is held up to us as an example of faith in God by what she did. It is not in the context of Hebrews 11 to say that God is holding her up as an exception to prove the rule.
Again, this is in the NEW testament, after Christ’s 1st coming… where there are now NO jew or gentile.
I agree with you in the authority of the church, and that the Catechism states that lying is a sin. But we as Catholics hold that Tradition / the Magisterium is an equal authority with the Bible. I only point out this is not an easy issue.
I have been consistently quoting the Bible and since when is the Bible not authoratative?
I have been consistently quoting the Bible and since when is the Bible not authoratative?
It is authoritative of course but one can’t hold that Scripture condones lying under certain circumstances while Tradition condemns it under all circumstances. Either Tradition is wrong (impossible) or your interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.
LJD
you are right. I am wrong.
Scripture speaks for itself and I am comfortable with mystery.
peace to you. end my comments.
Are those who are saying that lying is always wrong therefore saying that no good Catholic can be an undercover policeman or intelligence agent living under cover?
Some people have been asking for the website host to opine during this thread. My guess is that he will, once he gets enough “bulletin board” material from people. I expect to see this discussion as part of a ‘blog entry in the very near future.
“Are those who are saying that lying is always wrong therefore saying that no good Catholic can be an undercover policeman or intelligence agent living under cover?”
I have often suspected that the correct answer to this is yes. Remember that once upon a time being a spy was commonly regarded in the Christian West as dishonorable. You might make use of spies to help your cause, but you certainly didn’t admire them. Alfred Hitchock made movies (e.g., Secret Agent, North by Northwest) about the moral corrosiveness of service as an intelligence agent, even in a good cause. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Hitchock was Catholic.
Seamus-
It occurs to me that approving of sin or encouraging others to sin is sinful in itself. So, if spying is immoral, then using spies would be immoral.
If it is permissable to steal (which the Ten Commandments forbids) in certain extenuating circumstances, then it would not surprise me at all if lying were also permitted under similar circumstances.
I can’t believe some of the reasoning I’m reading.
Evasions like, “I wouldn’t lie, but I would attempt to deceive,” does not cut it. One, deception is deception. Two, any trained police officer would recognize exactly what you are doing. And since the Nazis don’t need probable cause or worry about civil liberties, they would barge in and take the Jew anyway.
I don’t think it serves the glory of God by allowing someone else to be murdered because you want the appearance of clean hands. Isn’t this the type of hypocrisy Jesus railed against?
Even if lying is a sin, it’d be a venal at best in this case. Collaborating with the enemy (ie. telling the truth to the Nazi in this case) is certainly a mortal sin.
Someone mentioned the martyrs’ refusal to lie to save their skin. But they were being witnesses to the faith, and they personally suffered for their refusal. Using that as an excuse not to protect someone under your protection is obscene. You are not paying the price for speaking the truth, someone else is. Furthermore, one cannot call such cowardly behavior “bearing witness to Christ.”
Furthermore, there is the concept that this Jew is under your protection. You have told this person you will protect him. Perhaps you have even sworn an oath. I certainly don’t see any Jew accepting such “protection” from someone who tells them, “Well, you can stay here if you want, but if the Gestapo comes, you’re on your own.” By not lying to the Nazi, you are obstensibly lying to the person you have pledged to protect anyway. Most likely, you are reenacting the betrayal of Judas.
Of course, perhaps this choice is too much for you. You don’t even want to risk any sin, do you? Perhaps then you’ll simply do nothing. Wash your hands of the entire thing. I’m sure that’s another thing God likes.
So take your pick:
Be Judas.
Be Pontius Pilate.
Or be a mere sinner, but one who protects a fellow human being’s life.
Which one is most like a disciple of Christ?
Of course, the saints would never have this problem to begin with. Because far earlier than this they would have protested and disobeyed the Nazi tyranny and been taken away and shot dead years earlier. However, I notice that not many people actually choose this course of events.
This discussion has got me thinking, but I don’t think “Lying is a sin” is that simple, for the reasons Chris has offered. Also, think of the scandal to the Jews if you don’t outright defend them–how do you think they’d feel if they were betrayed to the Nazis by a Christian who decided he couldn’t decieve for any reason? They probably wouldn’t have a very high opinion of Christians after that, which wouldn’t do their souls any good.
If it is permissable to steal (which the Ten Commandments forbids) in certain extenuating circumstances, then it would not surprise me at all if lying were also permitted under similar circumstances.
The point is that if you are in extreme need taking the goods of another is not stealing.
Lying is always lying.
Evasions like, “I wouldn’t lie, but I would attempt to deceive,” does not cut it. One, deception is deception. Two, any trained police officer would recognize exactly what you are doing. And since the Nazis don’t need probable cause or worry about civil liberties, they would barge in and take the Jew anyway.
Yes, they would also be unlikely to accept the word of the person harboring the Jews in question, too.
Even if lying is a sin, it’d be a venal at best in this case.
Yes, it would be a venial sin. Only malicious lies can be mortal sins.
Collaborating with the enemy (ie. telling the truth to the Nazi in this case) is certainly a mortal sin.
Do you have a citation for this? or is it simply your own opinion?
This discussion has got me thinking, but I don’t think “Lying is a sin” is that simple, for the reasons Chris has offered.
In other words, you take his opinion over that of St. Pius X, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.
Also, think of the scandal to the Jews if you don’t outright defend them–how do you think they’d feel if they were betrayed to the Nazis by a Christian who decided he couldn’t decieve for any reason?
Surely you’re not saying that one should lie in order to prevent scandal?
One may use a mental reservation (telling the truth, or part of it, in a way that the questioner doesn’t gain any useful information), or one can answer a standard “I don’t know”
The problem with this is that of course using mental reservations, or equivocation, or evasion, is sinful in itself.
If it were not Jews you were hiding in your house, but your sick child, so that the house would not be put in quarantine (assuming that the illness is as grave and contagious as the authorities think, and disaster will not befall those in the household under quarantine), and the authorities asked if you had a sick child in the house, it would be wrong to tell the authorities ‘No’ — but it would also be wrong to tell them, “That would be illegal, I would have to tell you so you could quarantine the house.”
Mary:
The problem with this is that of course using mental reservations, or equivocation, or evasion, is sinful in itself.
The English Jesuits certainly didn’t think so, and I think they were right. Catholic tradition isn’t as one-sided as some people here are trying to make it out to be.
I’d like to refer people to St. Edmund Campion, that great liar and martyr.
Oh, yes. Chesterton once cited a Catholic as urging people to make up your mind to lie and then lie like a trooper.
The advantage to lying over mental reservations is that it’s harder to deceive yourself. Any form of equivocation makes easier to say, “Well, it’s technically true” rather than, “Deceiving this person is justified.” — and so to say it when the first is true but the second is not.
The problem with this is that of course using mental reservations, or equivocation, or evasion, is sinful in itself.
No it isn’t. A strict mental reservation, in which one makes a statement (“There are no Jews here!”) and mentally adds a qualifier (“. . . in my broom closet”), is sinful, but a broad mental reservation is not (with sufficient reason). You can’t employ mental reservation if the other party has a right to the truth (for example, if you’re a young person and your parents ask you if you’re using drugs).
But if a broad mental reservation is allowed — basically you’re allowed to deceive according to how clever you are about coming up with an evasion. Suppose the person at home was a child, or mentally retarded?
I think perhaps we need an interpretation of the catechism’s definition of lying as leading someone into error.
Lauda, how do you justify that “in cases of extreme need” taking something that is not yours is not stealing, yet insist that lying is always lying? Where do you get the idea that you can have an exception for one but not the other?