Paul lying?

[LivingWordUnity]

The Catholic Church has a beatified priest and martyr who used deception in order to do the work of God during a time of great persecution of Christians by an early 20th century communist government in Mexico. Here's an excerpt from an article about the life of Bl. Miguel Pro.

Miguel Pro’s mischievous character and funny bone were among his greatest gifts – gifts that enabled his ministry in Mexico even when it was outlawed. As a scholastic, he was forced out of his homeland during government-imposed religious suppression, returning 12 years later as a priest during the Cristiada, the rebellion of Catholics against Mexican President Plutarco Elias Calles. The Cristiada escalated to such dangerous heights that priests were exiled and Catholic bishops elected to halt public worship in Mexico, a decision approved by Pope Pius XI, who himself condemned, in two encyclicals, the Mexican government’s persecution and murder of Catholics.

Through all this, Pro considered his re-admittance into the country a miracle. No one examined his passport or searched his bags. Upon arrival inMexico City, he realized that Catholics were starved for communion, leading him to create “Eucharistic Stations” throughout the city where he distributed daily communion to as many as 300 people and on First Fridays to well over 1,000 faithful souls.

He administered the sacraments in secrecy and in disguise, donning the clothes of a cab driver or a mechanic to share the Spiritual Exercises or to perform baptisms and wearing a business suit to solicit donations from wealthy Catholics or to celebrate marriages. Under the long nose of local government, he impersonated a prison guard to hear confessions and pray with prisoners. He was always on the move, and though he received messages and donations in a variety of locations, the police were never far behind.

Pro’s own writing tells of an occasion when police entered a private home as he celebrated Mass; after rushing everyone into other rooms of the house, he hid the Blessed Sacrament in his suit pocket. He accompanied police on their search for a priest and when none was found, a guard was posted at the door of the residence. Upon his exit, a jovial Pro informed the guard that he would have remained behind to catch the priest were it not for a date with his girlfriend. Jesting about the near snare, he later wrote, “…I returned to the place, but, somehow or other, the priest had not yet appeared…”

(Read more)​

 

[LivingWordUnity]

There is the concept of mental reservation, which is to reserve in one's head part of a conversation.
Bad guy: what is your name?
Spy: my name is (not) bill smith, I am (not) interested in joining your campaign and working for you.

That strikes me as behind the limits of what can be done, but respected moral theologians have suggested that that does not amount to a lie. The people who argue these topics should be people who have a solid grasp on the subject matter. I would not say that I do, and it is rather clear that nobody else in the discussion does either.

What if we are in an emergency situation, like the one where someone is hiding a family of Jews from the Nazis who are pounding at the door, and we aren't mentally sophisticated enough or are too caught up in the fear of the moment to do those kind of mental gymnastics? What if telling a lie is the only thing we can think of to save the family of innocents from the Nazis who would otherwise barge in and kill them?

 

[paul becke]

This position is contrary to Church teaching. We may not do evil so good may come. We may not lie to save a life. The morality of an act does not hinge on whether good is coming of it. Culpability can be reduced if evil is down for good, but the evil act does not become a moral act. Object and intent, 1749-1761.

This is precisely the legalistic myopia that Francis rails against, as, indeed, did Jesus. Straining at a gnat to swallow a camel.

The catechism is of immense value of course, but in the end, if we lead a life of any virtue, we will be faced with difficult moral dilemmas, and we must act according to charity (not according to God directly via the catechism or canon law, but to Him through our fellow man).

Our interior life is not one long, ongoing mathematical equation that must have neat correct answers throughout, or the final answer will be wrong. Graham Greene understood this very well. So did Solzhenitsin, who spoke about a janitor who, he came to realise, somehow always made the right decisions.

Jesus called the Anawin blessed, in his Sermon on the Mount, because he knew what a struggle, what an uneven struggle it was/(is) for the poor to be formally correct all the time in their observance of the niceties of theological protocols.

YET, from the mood of gratitude conveyed by his words in that text, it is clear that he was thanking THEM for teaching HIM the BASIC values, the most important values of the very faith that he was preaching to them.

As the Protestant preacher, W B Barclay, put it:

'The Beatitudes are not pious hopes of what shall be, they are congratulations on what is.'

They were/are poor, and thus beseiged by problems throwing up moral dilemmas, not because they were/are feckless, lazy or all the other tripe they are accused of by monied folk, but because they were/are more basically spiritual, have a much stronger purchase on things spiritual. 'Where your treasure is, there is your heart, also.'

It is not for nothing that the burden of scripture speaks of the 'virtuous man', the True Israel, in apposition to the poor man'; and conversely, the 'wicked man' 'the deceitful man', the 'violent man', the 'oppressor', in apposition to the 'rich man'. The Psalms, in particular make the point again and again. A generalisation, of course, since there are good monied folk, but generalizations are unavoidable if we are to make sense of life - even essential for Jesus.

The catechism is a guide, but if you can fulfil all its demands all the time, like the Pharisees, you will have neglected the weightier parts of the law, and the depth of your spiritual life will be relatively shallow, because uncomprehending.

As for not lying about hiding a Jewish person hunted by Nazis, whoever rates observing a catechetical rule above compassion should be ashamed at their lack of basic understanding.

 

[seekingfreedom]

The catechism is a guide, but if you can fulfil all its demands all the time, like the Pharisees, you will have neglected the weightier parts of the law, and the depth of your spiritual life will be relatively shallow, because uncomprehending. ---Paul Becke


That's it in a nutshell.

 

[MikeK]

So little love for the consistent moral teaching of Christ's Church through the ages here.

The Church has been clear. Lying is evil. We may not do evil so good may come.

Can you contracept to save a life? Can you licitly abort to save a life? Can you desecrate the Eucharist to save a life? Can you deny the Holy Spirit to save a life?

Of course, the conversation gets convoluted when we consider what lying is, how cutting babies from their mother's wombs to die in order to treat the mother for an ectopic pregnancy, the fine line between murder and just war and self defense, the fact that women may use contraceptive methods to defend themselves from an assault and yet not be performing the contraceptive action which by Church definition applies to the conjugal, not merely sexual act, etc.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think the problem is that absolutes rarely work in every situation. Lying is evil is a starting point to an entire conversation over what lying is, if there are any exceptions to the rule, and if circumstances ever arise that change the nature of it all.

There are a few places in the Bible I can think of where HaShem tells a person to lie and I imagine that neither you nor the Church would say that HaShem's orders are evil.

 

[hedrick]

[deleted. hadn't noticed this was OBOB]

 

[MikeK]

No thanks, I am perfectly satisfied with the definitions given through agents of Christ's Church though the ages, even if they raise difficulty. To claim that lying is not evil is not consistent with Catholic understanding. To claim that evil may be done so that good may come is not compatible with Catholic understanding. Many people balk at these principals, as they do make life more difficult and everything is much easier when we drift off into relativism. Easy does not describe the path the Catholic is called to walk.


That said - there clearly is a danger stemming from the allowance of mental reservations and the non-clear-cut times when it may be applied, I fully agree. I find dishonesty repulsive and I have little tolerance for persons who are not up front in their speech, who act like cowards and refuse to answer direct questions directly, etc. for the time we spend in these imperfect time and place, we should expect to have to endure imperfections, I suppose.

 

[RDKirk]

Such a person doesn not have a right to the truth, and lying is always evil and we cannot do evil so that good may come. I might make an attempt to kill that person, acting as a non traditional combatant in a just war. I might lie,knowing full well that what I was doing was forbidden but trusting in the Blood of Christ anyway.

Mike, you've strayed into the absurd here.

How can you argue that Just War theory permits killing when in the same way a lie would avoid killing? If a president could have told a single lie (or even a series of lies) to avoid a war that would kill thousands, that would be a "just" war?

There is a "just war" concept in scripture, and that concept indicates that tactical deception of the enemy in combat is perfectly moral.

In Exodus 2, the Hebrew midwives deceive the Egyptians about their saving of Hebrew boy babies. We are explicitly told that God blessed the midwives for this.

In Exodus 3, God explicitely instructs Moses to deceive the king of Egypt--God gives Moses the deception word-for-word.

In Joshua 2, Rahab deceives soldiers of Jericho to protect the Israelite spies. James explicitly praises her for her deception.

In 1 Samuel 21, David feins insanity to protect himself from the King of Gath's revenge.

In 2 Kings 6, when Elisha’s prayer blinded the enemy army, after which the prophet deceived them into following him into captivity.

In 2 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22, God sends a "lying spirit" to deceive King Ahab, who has made himself God's enemy.

In John 7, when Jesus' brother suggested He go to the Festival of Tabernacles to display Himself for public recognition (the second temptation that Satan attempted in the wilderness), Jesus told them He would not. Yet, He did...and in disguise at that.

All of these are examples of tactical deception in warfare (either physical war or spiritual war). None of these examples is criticized in scripture, some of them are explicitly praised...and a couple are practiced by the LORD Himself.

When you look at the scriptural requirements to speak the truth, each of them specifically characterize circumstances in which we are bound to speak the truth. Those circumstances all involve cases in which we are bound to the other person(s) by a covenant of some kind. Facing the enemy in combat is not one of those circumstances.

It is a soldier’s moral duty to his commander and fellow soldiers to deceive his enemy and not to betray those whose trust is in him. God fully recognizes this.

 

[MikeK]

Deception and lying are not synonyms, moral theologians have given several examples of the types of deceptions that, while certainly not honest, are not examples of lies. I have mentioned in this thread examples of deception that are at least sometimes allowable. I agree that it is convoluted, all of Christianity is convoluted. Ithe trinity doesn't make intuitive sense, that God would become man, would insist on a virgin birth, would love all His creation but allow suffering - none of that makes sense and it makes less sense the more you study it. That doesn't make it false.

 

[RDKirk]

Deception and lying are not synonyms, moral theologians have given several examples of the types of deceptions that, while certainly not honest, are not examples of lies. I have mentioned in this thread examples of deception that are at least sometimes allowable. I agree that it is convoluted, all of Christianity is convoluted. Ithe trinity doesn't make intuitive sense, that God would become man, would insist on a virgin birth, would love all His creation but allow suffering - none of that makes sense and it makes less sense the more you study it. That doesn't make it false.

There is no convolution. The circumstances are actually pretty clear cut and there is usually little gray.

There is nothing gray, for instance, about "to save lives." Such a lie/deception in that case is not merely "allowable," it is explicitly God-blessed.

 

[MikeK]

There is no convolution. The circumstances are actually pretty clear cut and there is usually little gray.

There is nothing gray, for instance, about "to save lives." Such a lie/deception in that case is not merely "allowable," it is explicitly God-blessed.

Then the argument must either be that lying is not evil, or that evil can be done that good may come. Both of these positions are at odds with Catholic teaching. If they are not, we fall into Orthodox thought, where evil is acknowledged but can sometimes be tolerated via oikonomia on an as-required basis.

 

[TillICollapse]

Mike, you've strayed into the absurd here.

How can you argue that Just War theory permits killing when in the same way a lie would avoid killing? If a president could have told a single lie (or even a series of lies) to avoid a war that would kill thousands, that would be a "just" war?

There is a "just war" concept in scripture, and that concept indicates that tactical deception of the enemy in combat is perfectly moral.

In Exodus 2, the Hebrew midwives deceive the Egyptians about their saving of Hebrew boy babies. We are explicitly told that God blessed the midwives for this.

In Exodus 3, God explicitely instructs Moses to deceive the king of Egypt--God gives Moses the deception word-for-word.

In Joshua 2, Rahab deceives soldiers of Jericho to protect the Israelite spies. James explicitly praises her for her deception.

In 1 Samuel 21, David feins insanity to protect himself from the King of Gath's revenge.

In 2 Kings 6, when Elisha’s prayer blinded the enemy army, after which the prophet deceived them into following him into captivity.

In 2 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22, God sends a "lying spirit" to deceive King Ahab, who has made himself God's enemy.

In John 7, when Jesus' brother suggested He go to the Festival of Tabernacles to display Himself for public recognition (the second temptation that Satan attempted in the wilderness), Jesus told them He would not. Yet, He did...and in disguise at that.

All of these are examples of tactical deception in warfare (either physical war or spiritual war). None of these examples is criticized in scripture, some of them are explicitly praised...and a couple are practiced by the LORD Himself.

When you look at the scriptural requirements to speak the truth, each of them specifically characterize circumstances in which we are bound to speak the truth. Those circumstances all involve cases in which we are bound to the other person(s) by a covenant of some kind. Facing the enemy in combat is not one of those circumstances.

It is a soldier’s moral duty to his commander and fellow soldiers to deceive his enemy and not to betray those whose trust is in him. God fully recognizes this.

Whoa what an interesting post.

It puts a new perspective on 2 Thessalonians 2 for me. Very interesting.

"For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

 

[LoAmmi]

Whoa what an interesting post.

To be fair, I'm assuming that there is an idea that if HaShem directly orders someone to do something, it is automatically not evil even if in every other circumstance it is evil.

 

[TillICollapse]

To be fair, I'm assuming that there is an idea that if HaShem directly orders someone to do something, it is automatically not evil even if in every other circumstance it is evil.

Yes I think that idea is one that could be extrapolated from the way we commonly view those in power and authority actually, or from those whom we trust. What may be evil for every other person is viewed as such, but if someone we love or trust, or recognize in power and authority orders it or does it ... it's not evil. For whatever our reason. In the case of HaShem it may often be, "HaShem is good, and cannot do evil. Therefore everything HaShem does it good, even if it looks evil to us," or "HaShem has His reasons," etc.

However perhaps the context itself of such choices made by HaShem, as well as directions given to others ... reveals more about the context as to why/when such choices are made. Or why they are even necessary for that matter, if "necessary" would even apply.

 

[TillICollapse]

There is a "just war" concept in scripture, and that concept indicates that tactical deception of the enemy in combat is perfectly moral.

In Exodus 2, the Hebrew midwives deceive the Egyptians about their saving of Hebrew boy babies. We are explicitly told that God blessed the midwives for this.

In Exodus 3, God explicitely instructs Moses to deceive the king of Egypt--God gives Moses the deception word-for-word.

In Joshua 2, Rahab deceives soldiers of Jericho to protect the Israelite spies. James explicitly praises her for her deception.

In 1 Samuel 21, David feins insanity to protect himself from the King of Gath's revenge.

In 2 Kings 6, when Elisha’s prayer blinded the enemy army, after which the prophet deceived them into following him into captivity.

In 2 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22, God sends a "lying spirit" to deceive King Ahab, who has made himself God's enemy.

In John 7, when Jesus' brother suggested He go to the Festival of Tabernacles to display Himself for public recognition (the second temptation that Satan attempted in the wilderness), Jesus told them He would not. Yet, He did...and in disguise at that.

All of these are examples of tactical deception in warfare. None of these examples is criticized in scripture, some of them are explicitly praised...and a couple are practiced by the LORD Himself.

When you look at the scriptural requirements to speak the truth, each of them specifically characterize circumstances in which we are bound to speak the truth. Those circumstances all involve cases in which we are bound to the other person(s) by a covenant of some kind. Facing the enemy in combat is not one of those circumstances.

It is a soldier’s moral duty to his commander and fellow soldiers to deceive his enemy and not to betray those whose trust is in him. God fully recognizes this.

I don't normally do this, but I think it would make an interesting discussion in the Ethics section of the forum to discuss this topic ... If I start a thread on it, I would like to quote the above part of your post, if that's okay, as part of a kick-starter for the discussion. If you'd rather me not use your post, it's cool, I don't usually ask to quote others posts in such a fashion, but you've summarized some interesting points and passages here.

 

[RDKirk]

Whoa what an interesting post.

It puts a new perspective on 2 Thessalonians 2 for me. Very interesting.

"For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

I think the Chronicles and Kings stories gives us the "spiritual view" of exactly how that sending of the delusion takes place.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think the Chronicles and Kings stories gives us the "spiritual view" of exactly how that sending of the delusion takes place.

Hmm. Perhaps a personal study on those accounts is in order ..

 

[Gwendolyn]

Hey guys,

The morality of lying is actually still hotly debated by theologians today. The debate has been raging for over 1500 years (since Augustine wrote his treatise on lying). Theologians all agree that lying is a grave sin, but they do not agree on whether or not one can blatantly lie to save a life (which you guys have been discussing).

Regardless, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both agree that lying is immoral. St. Augustine wrote a treatise on lying (De Mendacio) in which he presented the very conundrum you guys are discussing now: whether or not it is immoral to outright lie in order to protect the life of another.

Augustine and Aquinas agree that outright lying is wrong; however, they advocate slight deception in the form of choosing one's words prudently. In Aquinas' words: "Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says" (Summa Theologiae II:110:3).

Due to scholastic influence, much of Catholic moral theology hinges on precise definitions. Once we establish definitions - such as, "what is a lie?" and "what does it mean to tell a lie?" - then we are on an even playing field and can more accurately address specific moral cases.

To be properly termed a lie, a statement must fulfill two conditions: (a) It must be objectively false; (b) It must be spoken with the intention to deceive. This obviously presents a huge conundrum (which is unfolding here): can you lie to save a life if you are harbouring an innocent, but hunted person?

Aquinas and Augustine are united on this, but many other theologians - including some saints - are not.

Here is a Catholic Answers article that is good at explaining the conundrum:
Is Lying Ever Right? | Catholic Answers

On the whole, based on Aquinas and Augustine - who I truly admire and look to for guidance - the principle of "it is not permissible to do evil in order to bring about good" applies. You can dodge questions, even conceal the truth with arbitrary or confusing language, but you cannot outright lie.

That said, I would wholeheartedly understand why someone would lie if the Nazis came knocking, looking for Jews. But the question of whether or not an outright lie would be moral isn't completely resolved in moral theology yet.

Still, if you lied in such a situation, you could always go to confession to start fresh.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Augustine and Aquinas agree that outright lying is wrong; however, they advocate slight deception in the form of choosing one's words prudently. In Aquinas' words: "Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says" (Summa Theologiae II:110:3).

What seems to me to be a problem with that is that the fate of the Jewish family in hiding becomes dependent on the mental sophistication of the one who is helping them hide. When the Nazis are pounding on the door, we aren't all mentally sophisticated and fast-thinking enough to instantly come up with a way to choose just the right words so that it will be a slight deception without being a lie. It seems with this that the Jewish family who has someone hiding them who is devout yet unsophisticated is apparently at a huge disadvantage for their chances of survival.