Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

If possible, could you write a piece on the blog about "Peer-To-Peer
Filesharing".
This has been in the news recently with the Supreme Court decision
especially regarding the liability of Peer To Peer Networks.

If possible, could you address the specific act of filesharing
generally, . . .

Okay, lemme stop you there for a moment. I don’t know that I have any thoughts (at this point) on P2P filesharing that would be distinct from what I’ve already written about downloading music in general (see the moral theology category for those posts). P2P is simply a different method of delivery, but the same considerations apply . . . at least as far as morals go.

There may be other legal and technological considerations that apply. F’rinstance: My impression is that it is quite easy for the record companies to track and sue you if you use P2P systems. I don’t know if they’re any easier to be traced than other forms of extra-legal downloading, but the risks and costs of getting sued over this would be sufficient, quite apart from the moral grounds, to deter me from doing this.

. . . and if possible:

1.  Iis there a distinction morally between people who download files
to hear what the song is like, and then go out and buy it immediately
after having listened to it and delete the downloaded file on their
computer then and the people who download songs to keep them without
any intention of buying them.

Is there a moral distinction? Yes, there is. The former is something that I would not see as intrinsically morally problematic. The sin of theft is taking or using another person’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. If you are trying out a song to see if you want to buy it then that does not strike me as against the reasonable will of the copyright owner.

The latter, though, is theft–at least the way the economy is structured at present–since you would be circumventing the reasonable will of the copyright owner by denying him the just compensation for the copy of the music that you are making so that you can add it to your collection and listen to it on a regular basis (as opposed to sampling it to see if you want to purchase it).

It would be ideal if there was a one-play file format that you could download songs in so that you could listen to them once and make your decision, following which the file would be unplayable. Unfortunately, there ain’t such a format at present (at least not in wide circulation). As a result, the record companies and (more importantly) the lawmakers have no way of knowing that this is your intent in downloading, and so the law is crafted so that they can sue you for large sums of money.

As a result, I’d advise you to go to iTunes or Amazon or somewhere that you can simply listen to excerpts of songs and make your decision based on the excerpt.

Even if you guess wrong, you’ll likely only be out 99 cents or 88 cents or 77 cents of whatever the price is of the service you’re using. That’s worth it to me not to have the risk of getting sued.

NOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WONT TO OBJECT THAT THE ABILITY TO MAKE DIGITAL COPIES AT INFINITESIMAL COSTS SOMEHOW CHANGES THE RULES OF THE MARKETPLACE ON ALL THIS: We’ve already hashed through this subject before, and I don’t want to hash through it again just now, thanks.

2.  What about files offered such as the U2 "Unreleased songs" or Live
in Dublin 1989 or Live in Mexico" U2 Concert files which are only
availabe through iTunes if you pay £119.99. They cannot be purchased
separately. How immoral is it to download these songs?

I presume that there are commercially available versions of the same songs out there for purchase. They might not be identical to the ones done in concert in Dublin or Mexico City or wherever, but it seems to me that the fact that there are reasonable approximations of these songs out there makes it (a) within the reasonable will of the owner to not release these and (b) makes it not-worth-the-risk to download them illegally. One should simply buy the standard commercial versions and make do with those.

If one really wants the materials and one has to pay £119.99 for them then, since there is no establishable economic value for the works apart from what the market mechanism will provide, you either buy them or you don’t. You could write the artists or the record companies and say, "Y’know, I’d buy these if you’d come down on the price or make them available individually for download rather than as a batch, and I think a lot of other people would be willing to do so as well. But as it is, I just can’t afford what you’re asking, so it’s costing you my sale and probably a lot of other sales as well." If enough people contact them and tell them that then it will help the market mechanism do it’s job of establishing the optimal price for these.

At least this is the way I’d tend to approach the situation in the absence of some compelling reason that would (a) make it worth the risk of getting sued (neutralizing the legal concern) and (b) make it contrary to the reasonable will of the copyright holder (neutralizing the moral concern).

If there are commercially available versions of the same songs out there for purchase then, even if they aren’t note-for-note identical, it’s hard for me to imagine what such a reason might be.

A reader writes:

Hey, I was hoping you’d be able to help me out with a question I have.  A
priest told me listening to bad music is objectively sinful. I was
wondering if you could give me some advice as to where to draw the line.
This can also apply to movies and tv as well. 

This is a tough one. In the short space available in a blog post (or a private e-mail) there is no way to give more than a general answer to this, but the general answer is this: It is immoral, without a justifying reason, to place oneself in a situation where you will be tempted sin. If listening to the music will tempt you to sin then it is immoral for you to listen to the music without a justifying reason.

A word should be said about having a justifying reason to enter a situation in which one realizes that one will be tempted because many people neglect this aspect and speak as if it is never permissible to enter a situation in which one reasonably foresees that one will be tempted. This reflects a pious and praiseworthy sentiment, but it is patently not true if you spend a few moments thinking about it. Trying to avoid every possible temptation in life would destroy one’s ability to lead a human life and cause one to develop a morbid fear of temptation that will result in extreme scrupulosity. We simply were not designed to be in perpetual flight from temptation, and if we try to be then we will do ourselves harm. Such an attitude also fails to do justice to the empowerment that the Holy Spirit gives to us to resist and overcome our temptations.

The fact is that there are so many causes for temptation–even if you live in a monastery and never watch TV or listen to the radio or read non-sacred books–that you will be completely paralyzed if you try to run away from any possible exposure to temptation. You will simply stay in bed all day, and even that won’t work because staying in bed all day will not cure your temptations. Due to the fall, we have temptation built into us, and so temptation is something we just have to live with.

It is like risk: Just as we cannot eliminate risk from life, we cannot eliminate temptation from life. The correct strategy in both cases is to manage risk and to manage temptation.

Thus there are justifying reasons to assume a risk and there are justifying reasons to enter situations in which one reasonably foresees that one will be tempted.

F’rinstance: Suppose that your teenage daughter has (unbeknownst to you) been taken to a pornographic movie. Upon discovering this, you might conclude that the thing to do is to enter the pornographic movie theater, find her in the dark, and drag her back home. In this case, even though you might be tempted by the sights and sounds that you will experience upon entering the movie house as you try to find your daughter, you would have a justifying cause for entering the situation, even knowing that you yourself may experience some level of temptation. The good you are trying to do for her by getting her out of that situation is sufficient ot justify the risk that you are taking by allowing yourself a brief exposure to material that might tempt you.

A justifying cause need not be so extreme, however. Humans have a need for recreation that God built into us. Suppose, then, that one day you are in need of recreation and decide that the thing to do is listen to some music. You have a very nice CD on hand, whose music you know you would enjoy and that would provide you the recreation you need, but you also happen to know that a couple of the songs on the CD have bad words in them and one is a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status is Not At All Clear.

What do you do?

Well, you do your best to figure out what level of temptation listening to the album would put you in. If the temptation you reasonably foresee is too great then you don’t listen. If it isn’t too great, then you do listen. What counts as too much temptation is a tricky question, but there isn’t much of a way to simplify it. It’s comes down to a prudential choice that you have to make based on your knowledge of yourself and your knowledge of the material you will be encountering.

Now back to the reader’s question:

If there is no occasion of
sin by listening to or watching something, then I suppose the only problem
is supporting it. 

This would be true, but note then that we aren’t talking about the act of listening to or watching something at this point. We are talking about the act of "supporting" it, by which I assume that you mean paying money to those who produce it.

At that point it becomes much harder to establish that sin is taking place because we’re talking about boycotting stuff because it contains objectionable content, and the Church has never said that such boycotting is morally obligatory on the faithful. In the absence of a clear moral obligation, the faithful should not act on the assumption that it would be sinful to fail to boycott it.

In general, personal boycotts conducted in silence are not productive. If you don’t buy Artist X’s latest CD because his previous one had two immoral words on it and a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status was Not At All Clear then Artist X is very unlikely to be taught any kind of a lesson by the mere fact that you don’t buy his next CD. How is he supposed to know why you didn’t by it? Maybe you didn’t like the music on the last one. Or maybe you liked somebody else’s last CD better. Or maybe you’re short on cash when it hits the stands. How is he supposed to know?

You might, if you wish, choose to write him a letter and say, "Dear Artist X: I am not going to buy your next CD because your last one had two dirty words and a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status was Not At All Clear. If you make cleaner CDs, though, I will buy them." That at least would have some chance of teaching him a lesson about what kind of CDs he should make. It could even be a good and praiseworthy thing for you to write such letters.

But here’s the deal: It’s not morally obligatory for you to write them, and in the absence of writing them, I don’t see how it is morally obligatory for you to personally boycott his next CD when he has no way of understanding the reason for (or even the existence of) the boycott.

I’m a musician myself and so studying music is very
important to me.  Listening and learning from various artists is how I get
better and to cut out music that may have any sinful message in it would
require not listening to quite a bit of secular music. 

Okay, now you just introduce a whole new class of justifying reasons: the professional reason. People can have a professional reason for exposing themselves to situations that might possibly result in temptation for them:

• Doctors frequently need to look at people who aren’t fully clothed.
• Christian movie critics need to watch movies that have problematic content so they can warn others what that content is.
• Apologists need to read arguments supporting false belief systems.
• Etc., etc., etc.

Musicians also need to listen to music to master their craft even though the music may not be wholesome through and through.

So you just strengthened the justifying reasons that may exist for you to listen to certain kinds of music.

Note that I didn’t say "This means you can listen to any and all music." If a particular piece or kind of music is going to create too great a temptation for you then you can’t listen to it, but that gets us back to the prudential judgment that you have to make based on your knowledge of yourself and the material.

The priest said if I
wouldn’t listen to it with Jesus, Mary, my guardian angel or whoever else I
want to imagine was there, I probably shouldn’t listen to it.  This is a
good point . . .

Okay, let me interrupt you for a moment. I don’t think that this is a good point. This kind of "Would you do it with Jesus in the room?" calculus is almost guaranteed to lead you to err in one of two directions: Either it will degrade your perception of what it is okay to do in general or it will degrade your perception of what it is okay to do in Jesus’ presence. In other words, it will either make you scrupulous or it will make you irreverent. Lemme ‘splain:

If Jesus really walked into the room, which of the following would strike you as a good thing to do?

1. Ask him if he would like to go see a movie?
2. Tell him a joke?
3. Offer him a beer?
4. Say he can help himself to the snacks in the fridge?
5. Quake in abject terror at his feet while imploring his mercy?

If you have a lively awareness of the fact that Jesus is God Himself and you contemplate God Himself walking into the room then alternative 5 is going to suggest itself rather more strongly to you than the others. The other four options would (for a person with a normal conscience) kind of fade into the background at such a moment.

Now, there may be other options besides 5 that could be appropriate (e.g., worship him in awe), but my point is: Having Jesus in the room skews the normal human calculus of what is the right thing to do at the moment.

That’s why some things are not appropriate to do during Eucharistic exposition even though the same thing is perfectly appropriate when one is not at Eucharistic exposition (e.g., eating a meal, bathing, deliberately going to sleep).

If you try to imagine Jesus in the room as a test for whether it’s okay to do something then one of two things will happen:

• You will become scrupulous because you will conclude that an awful lot of things are not okay which in fact are okay (e.g., "I wouldn’t snarf down a Big Mac while bopping to secular music on my iPod during Eucharistic exposition, therefore I should never do those things").
• You will become irreverent by concluding that things that are okay to do in general must therefore be okay to do when in the immediate presence of Infinite Holiness Incarnate (e.g., "It’s okay for me to snarf down a Big Mac while bouncing my head back and forth as I listen to secular music on my iPod in general, therefore that’s perfectly okay for me to do that during Eucharistic exposition").

The "Would you do it with Jesus in the room?" test thus strikes me as a bad tool to use for making such decisions. It either will force us to scrupulosity or irreverence–or both.

Same goes in varying degrees for imagining Mary, your guardian angel, your mom, or any such person.

Interruption over.

. . . except the lyrcis tend to not be what I pay attention to.  If I
could get an edited version without profanity in it, would it be more
acceptable, or would supporting a sinful artist with sinful lyrcis still be
considered wrong? 

I appreciate what you’re saying about not listening to the lyrics. Indeed, in many songs the lyrics aren’t even intelligible these days. If you could achieve the same goals with an edited version of the song and had ready access to one then it would be a good thing to use one, but I wouldn’t knock myself out toward procuring one really is not being significantly tempted and if the time and money spent on procuring one could be more profitably spent on something else.

As to the issue of boycotting the artist, I’ve already outlined my thoughts on that.

I will carry whatever cross God gives me, but I tend to
be a little scrupulous and this can cause me a lot of trouble knowing
whether something is truly wrong or whether I’m just trying to make
something out of nothing. 

Without knowing what music specifically is involved, I don’t know that I can form a judgment here. You could be listening to Gilbert & Sullivan and worrying about a peccadillo in Gilbert’s lyrics or you could be listening to Marilyn Manson and thinking that a song about devil worship is no big deal. Individuals’ perceptions of the moral character of the music they are listening to can vary greatly over the course of a lifetime, and I can’t advise you too well without specifics.

I would suggest that you talk it over with Christians who are mature in their faith, neither lax nor scrupulous, and be openminded to what they say as you form your own impressions and remain open to God’s leading.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

I have an odd question for you, raised by a friend of mine.  Some children ARE born "trans-gendered".

She writes: 

Intersex = overarching term for anyone born with a physical form not clearly "male" or "female" by current definitions of the terms. Can cover everyone from those born with[out the usual parts men and women normally come with], through XY females and XX males (those born appearing female or male but with a chromosomal sex at odds with their physical form).

Can they marry?  Does this come down to possiblity to bear children, in that if it’s not possible, a marriage cannot take place?  Can an XY female marry an XY male?  Or an XX Male and XX female?

I’m really confused on how to approach this issue.

You’re not alone in being unsure how to approch this issue. At present, the Church also seems to be. There are no authoritative statements from the Magisterium on the subject (to my knowledge), which means that the subject is in play for moral theologians to discuss. Eventually a consensus is likely to develop among moral theologians and, after that or in conjunction with that, a magisterial intervention may occur that creates an official position.

Till then, we just have to do the best we can figuring these things out. So let’s start with what seems certain and work our way out from that.

One thing that is certain (since you asked about marriage) is that a man can only marry a woman and visa versa.

It is also generally held as a certainty that all individuals are really either male or female. Sex in humans is binary. There are no alternatives or gradations in it. We may, in some cases, have a hard time determining which sex a person is, but ultimately they are one or the other.

But suppose, for a moment, that this were not the case. Suppose that, at some point in the distant future, the Church concluded that there are individuals who are not men or women but who have a defective gender. In such an eventuality, it would seem that those individuals simply would not be capable of marriage. Their situation would be analogous to individuals today who are incapable of marriage because they cannot perform the marital act (i.e., they are totally and incurably impotent). The situation of such individuals would be tragic–as is the case of individuals today who are incapable of contracting marriage–but that would seem to be the case for such individuals.

Now let’s suppose that the hypothesis on which that scenario is built is false–that all humans really are either male or female, as is generally assumed. In this case the trick would seem to be figuring out which gender a person is in an ambiguous case and then, to the extent medical science would allow, using corrective methods (e.g., surgery) to enable them to live and function as much as possible as what their gender is.

In determining what sex a person is, there seem to be two kinds of clues available to examine: anatomy and genetics. Unfortunately, at present neither of these can be turned to as an infallible guide.

In the case of anatomy, some individuals are born without sexual anatomy (or without a complete set of sexual anatomy). Others are born with a surplus of it (and a mixed surplus at that).

In the case of genetics, some individuals are missing a sex chromosome (e.g., they are born with just a single X chromosome; I don’t know if any are born with just a Y chromosome) or they are born with too many sex chromosomes (e.g., they have XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, or some other pattern).

Sometimes also anatomy fails to match genetics, as in the case of an "XX male" or an "XY female."

At this point moral theologians have not yet figured out how to resolve these ambiguous cases. The correct strategy is debatable and may depend on the facts of a specific case. Here are some of the options:

1. If the individual appears to have functional anatomy, go with the anatomy rather than the genetics. In other words, treat XX males as males and XY females as females.
2. If an individual lacks functional anatomy, go with genetics and use reconstructive surgery to help the person out. I.e., if someone is genetically male then help him surgically to have the appropriate anatomy. If someone is genetically female then help her surgically to hav the appropriate anatomy.
3. If an individual has two sets of anatomy (whole or partial) then go with genetics and use surgery to correct the anatomical situation.
4. If someone has a defective chromosome pattern (X, Y, XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.) then treat the person as whatever their anatomy would indicate.
5. Treat genetics as the ultimate determiner of sex. In the case of an XX male, use surgery to supply female anatomy. In the case of an XY female, do the same to supply male anatomy. In the case of a defective chromosome pattern, use the presence of a Y chromosome as a determiner of maleness, so X and XXX and XXXX individuals are female and Y, XXY, and XYY individuals are male. Use surgery to correct any problems that exist.

As you can see, these alternatives are not all exclusive of the others, though some are (e.g., 4 and 5 are directly in opposition).

I am a bit doubtful that the Magisterium would ever sign off on option #5. One reason is that it is radically different than the ways of handling these situations that Catholic health care providers and moralists have had up to now when helping children with ambiguous sex. Similarly, we’ve been living since the beginning of the human race (or almost the beginning, anyway) with folks who have one outward sex even though a genetic test would raise questions about it. It seems asking an awful lot to mandate that a XY females or XX males undergo surgery to switch their outward sex. This is a burden that they’ve never been asked to undertake before (though, of course, one may point out that we’ve never had genetic tests before).

I suspect that a patchwork of options, like the ones mentioned above, are likely to emerge in practice and in discussions among moral theologians. I suspect that the Magisterium will initially be hesitant to sign off on any of them.

Ultimately, it may conclude (I didn’t say will conclude) that neither anatomy or genetics (nor hormones, to mention something we haven’t touched on here but which play an important role in embryonic sex development) are alone fully determinative indicators of sex and that in hard cases whether one is male or female must be determined by looking algorithmically at a combination of these factors, as above.

Once the issue of what sex a person is has been sorted out–however it gets sorted out–it is then possible for that person to marry a person of the opposite gender, assuming that he or she is otherwise capable of contracting marriage.

The key here (given the concerns you raised above) is not whether the person is capable of fathering or bearing children. Fertility has never been a condition for validly contracting matrimony. What has and is a condition of that is the ability to perform the marital act. As noted, individuals who are perpetually and incurably impotent cannot contract marriage because they cannot truthfully promise to render the marriage debt (i.e.,sex) since they are incapable of rendering it.

If, however, through surgery or other medical means, they have been made capable of performing their marital duty (whatever their anatomical configuration was earlier in their life) then they are capable of marrying a person of the opposite gender.

MORE INFO ON INTERSEXED INDIVIDUALS HERE.

A reader writes:

Is it a mortal sin to attend the rehersal party and reception but not
the actual wedding ceremony of a catholic who is getting married
without a priest present? If the catholic is not going to practice
their faith what is the right thing to do?

For a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter and you must have adequate knowledge of this fact and deliberately consent to doing it anyway.

As to whether attending the rehersal and reception in question, whether this will have grave matter depends on the damage done (to the couple and to others) by your attendance. To the extent they are confirmed in the idea that what they are doing is okay or to the extent they are confused on this point, they are damaged.

A clearer message would be sent by simply not attending any of these and explaining that you care about the party (or parties) but can’t imply by your presence that a genuine marriage is or will come into existence by their actions.

If the party obtains a dispensation for having a non-Catholic wedding then the marriage will be valid and there is no problem attending. I assume that’s not happening in this case based on your question, though.

The mere fact that a Catholic has given up the practice of the faith, though, is not enough to solve the situation. If the Catholic party or parties have defected from the Church by a formal act (e.g., joining another church as an adult with the intent of no longer being a Catholic) then the marriage will be presumed valid and there would not be an instrinsic problem attending, but merely ceasing to practice the faith is not a formal defection.

As long as the marriage is going to be invalid, I cannot recommend involvement in it. At best, involvement sends a confusing signal to the couple. At worse, it can lead them and others in attendance to think that what is happening is okay.

20

A reader writes:

Is it a mortal sin to attend the rehersal party and reception but not

the actual wedding ceremony of a catholic who is getting married

without a priest present? If the catholic is not going to practice

their faith what is the right thing to do?

For a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter and you must have adequate knowledge of this fact and deliberately consent to doing it anyway.

As to whether attending the rehersal and reception in question, whether this will have grave matter depends on the damage done (to the couple and to others) by your attendance. To the extent they are confirmed in the idea that what they are doing is okay or to the extent they are confused on this point, they are damaged.

A clearer message would be sent by simply not attending any of these and explaining that you care about the party (or parties) but can’t imply by your presence that a genuine marriage is or will come into existence by their actions.

If the party obtains a dispensation for having a non-Catholic wedding then the marriage will be valid and there is no problem attending. I assume that’s not happening in this case based on your question, though.

The mere fact that a Catholic has given up the practice of the faith, though, is not enough to solve the situation. If the Catholic party or parties have defected from the Church by a formal act (e.g., joining another church as an adult with the intent of no longer being a Catholic) then the marriage will be presumed valid and there would not be an instrinsic problem attending, but merely ceasing to practice the faith is not a formal defection.

As long as the marriage is going to be invalid, I cannot recommend involvement in it. At best, involvement sends a confusing signal to the couple. At worse, it can lead them and others in attendance to think that what is happening is okay.

20

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

I’m 18 years old, a fellow Catholic, a Knight of
Columbus in the 3rd degree, and I play D&D.

I have a question that’s been haunting me. Is there truth to the story that
the new Pope, while still a cardinal, was on a committee that blacklisted
D&D?

Considering that you reference D&D and other RPGs, and not in a morally
negative light, I’m assuming that it’s not a sin to play D&D.

I’d really appreciate it if you could help me out.

P.S.: Are you a Knight? If not, have you given it any thought?

I’ve thought about it, but I’m not much of a joiner. Maybe someday.

As to the rumor you heard, here’s my rule for dealing with rumors about what popes have and have not done: I discount them utterly until such time as a person produces a primary source (or an extraordinarily reliable secondary source) validating the claim. There is simply too much nonsense on the papal rumor net to do otherwise.

Consequently, I could not recommend that you pay any mind to rumors that Cardinal Ratzinger was on a committee that prohibited the playing of Dungeons and Dragons or other role-playing games. Certainly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it ssubsidiary bodies did no such thing. Role-Playing Games are, frankly, a phenomena that simply does not rise high enough to trip the Vatican’s radar.

That being the case, one must fall back onto the principles of moral theology. On applying these to RPGs,

SEE HERE.

In sum, though: There is nothing intrinsically sinful with RPGs, though they can definitely be run in a way that has a corrosive effect on the morals of the players. This is particularly true of D&D as it is commonly played. It all depends on who you’re playing with, how the GM or DM runs the game, and how you respond.

Hope this helps, and thanks for writing!

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

I’m 18 years old, a fellow Catholic, a Knight of

Columbus in the 3rd degree, and I play D&D.

I have a question that’s been haunting me. Is there truth to the story that

the new Pope, while still a cardinal, was on a committee that blacklisted

D&D?

Considering that you reference D&D and other RPGs, and not in a morally

negative light, I’m assuming that it’s not a sin to play D&D.

I’d really appreciate it if you could help me out.

P.S.: Are you a Knight? If not, have you given it any thought?

I’ve thought about it, but I’m not much of a joiner. Maybe someday.

As to the rumor you heard, here’s my rule for dealing with rumors about what popes have and have not done: I discount them utterly until such time as a person produces a primary source (or an extraordinarily reliable secondary source) validating the claim. There is simply too much nonsense on the papal rumor net to do otherwise.

Consequently, I could not recommend that you pay any mind to rumors that Cardinal Ratzinger was on a committee that prohibited the playing of Dungeons and Dragons or other role-playing games. Certainly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it ssubsidiary bodies did no such thing. Role-Playing Games are, frankly, a phenomena that simply does not rise high enough to trip the Vatican’s radar.

That being the case, one must fall back onto the principles of moral theology. On applying these to RPGs,

SEE HERE.

In sum, though: There is nothing intrinsically sinful with RPGs, though they can definitely be run in a way that has a corrosive effect on the morals of the players. This is particularly true of D&D as it is commonly played. It all depends on who you’re playing with, how the GM or DM runs the game, and how you respond.

Hope this helps, and thanks for writing!

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…