Down yonder, a reader asks:
Wouldn’t posing as a child trafficker constitute the sin of lying?
It depends on whether you actually lie. It would be possible to use mental reservations to get through the situation. As another reader suggests:
IMO, this would fall under not lying. His interest is literally to
purchase children. His intent is for that purchase to be an act of
charity. By stating his interest he is not lying.
The Catechism would seem to offer support for this:
CCC 2489
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request
for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for
privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what
ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid
scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth
Rescuing children from sexual slavery would constitute "the good and safety of others" needed to justified "making use of a discreet language"–i.e., mentally reserving the fact that you are really an undercover operative trying to shut down the child slavery ring and otherwise seeking to purchase the children.
Of course, since the individuals at International Justice Mission are Evangelicals, they may well be unacquainted with the idea of mental reservation and may simply lie. I don’t know that they do, but it’s a possibility, especially when they get into situations where they don’t have a mental reservation handy and can’t risk exposure (which would likely imperil their lives). In such circumstances, though, the morality of their act would not only be ameliorated because of the grave fear of exposure and by their Evangelical formation but also because:
CCC 2484 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.
Trying to rescue kids from sexual slavery and bust up a ring of sex slave criminals is going to severely mitigate the culpability of the lie, just as in the case of the Hebrew midwives who lied to protect the baby boys in Exodus 1.
(And don’t be distracted by the harm suffered by the sex slave criminals who are then locked-up as a result. That isn’t "harm" in the sense of an unjust injury inflicted on the innocent. It’s getting them at least a fraction of what they deserve and thus not "harm." In the sense intended by this passage, "harm" means something bad that happens to an innocent person, not the avoidance of legitimate punishment.)
Unfortunately, even for one who is aware of the idea of mental reservation, doing this kind of work would put one in the proximate occasion of sin as one would be regularly tempted to lie to avoid exposure. However, given the relative gravity of the lies one would be tempted to tell and the gravity of what will happen to these kids if they are not rescued, it would seem that the assumption of this risk would be warranted for those able to stomach the work.
Not catching the criminals and locking them up may be a harm, in a manner of speaking — forcibly preventing someone from going on a road that you know lost its bridge is preventing harm, and so letting him go on his merry way might be a harm, in a manner of speaking.
(Not actively causing a harm, but certainly not preventing one.)
A lot of this reminds me of some of the commentary regarding the convents that sheltered Jewish children during World War II. It has been a few moons since I heard a report about it, so apologize for the lack details and sources.
The sisters were honest with their Nazi interogators stating that there were no Jewish children in this room or the basement. They simple didn’t directly answer the question that was put forward to them. Other times, I believe they simple remained silent.
On the other hand, I note that the sections cited do not actually say that mental reservations make the deceit innocent. Do we have an authorative source for that?
I remembered Newman’s position on the matter: “There are various schools of opinion allowed in the Church: and on this point I follow others. I follow Cardinal Gerdil, and Natalis Alexander, nay, St. Augustine. I will quote one passage from Natalis Alexander:-” They certainly lie, who utter the words of an oath, without the will to swear or bind themselves: or who make use of MENTAL RESERVATIONS and equivocations in swearing, since they signify by words what they have not in mind, contrary to the end for which language was instituted, viz. as signs of ideas.”
And, indeed, with mental reservations, you are deceiving the person you are speaking with. The bad thing is that you may deceive yourself as well, to think that your act is justified by its technical truth, no matter how much it deceives, so that you continue to use mental reservations with no shadow of excuse. In his account of his conversion, Chesterton mentions a Catholic named Ward who said, “Make up your mind that you are justified in lying and then lie like a trooper,” and approved of it because it was against equivocation.
So, since it has been disputed, do we have official pronouncments on it?
I think the Lord himself used mental reservations, both as man and before. The Lord revealed to the Jews that he is one God (as he is), but he did so without revealing that he is three persons. His revelation led (naturally) to the Jewish belief that he is one person.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Holy See condemned the doctrine of strict mental reservation. It does not say it condemned the doctrine of wide mental reservation. Here are the definitions it gives for those two doctrines:
“In the strict mental reservation the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact. On the other hand, in a wide mental reservation, the qualification comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves, or from the circumstances of time, place, or person in which they are uttered.”
I was always taught that a lie is telling an untruth to someone who is entitled to know the truth. I don’t think that the enslavers of children are entitled to know that you are there to rescue them.
The Trinity is a different case, because He did not state something that was false in the way the Jews took it.
Consider. A mother and child are in an accident. Though they are rushed to the hospital, the mother dies after receiving the sacraments. The child asks after the mother. Saying, “She can’t come to see you now” is suppressing a truth which might (in the child’s fragile health) be dangerous. Saying, “She’s just fine,” while thinking that because she received the sacraments you’re sure she’s in Heaven is using a mental reservation.
I’m confused. So it is a sin to be an undercover police officer?
At some point double effect goes into effect. If you were to be truthful, an evil that you had the power to prevent would take place.
In regards to undercover police, they are no more obligated to reveal their identity as you walk pass as an accountant would be. As far as stings, which I believe you are referring, I’m overall negative on them. The police are trying to find criminals, but they are creating a temptation to sin for the innocent. That is wrong.
At some point double effect goes into effect. If you were to be truthful, an evil that you had the power to prevent would take place.
————————————————
I think it’s a case of the lesser of two evils. The alternative to lying or concealing the truth in this case is doing nothing. There are no other practical alternatives. Clearly lying is the lesser of two evils.
Oops! That was me 😎
Chris,
It is never licit to do evil to achieve good. It is better that those children die than that someone commit a single sin (even a venial sin). One of the principles of double effect is that the act to be performed is good in itself or at least morally neutral. Lying is always a sin.
Jason,
Rescuing children from rape, torture, or death is generally considered a good. The most common case for double effect is shooting someone in self defense. Another common case is inducing an abortion if a woman is terminally bleeding and doing so will save her.
New Advent has quite an extensive article on the topic of lying. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm Needless to say there is quite a variance of views.
Michael,
Shooting another person is a MORALLY good act in itself, if done in self defense. In cases of difficult pregnancy, both the mother and the child must be treated as patients. A doctor may not intentionally do harm to the child. If harm is done to the child ACCIDENTLY, then no evil is committed; it is nothing more than an accident.
Rescuing children from danger IS a good. But the end does not justify the means. The Church is very clear that we may never do evil that good may come of it. It is better for us to die the most horrible death than to commit a single venial sin, because sin is a crime against an infinitely holy God.
Guile is fair in war, especially when it saves lives. Child traffickers are enemies of humanity, so the rules of war probably apply.