Paul lying?

[Davidnic]

like Gwen said it is not a matter of settled teaching in all situations. What about those who film planned parenthood misleading people to death? What about those in undercover drug busts...and dozens of other situations.

There is a degree of prudential judgement and use of conscience to discern God's will in these matters.

Also I have seen moral theologians make a distinction that a lie must deceive those who have a right to the truth. An argument can be made that someone can lack moral or civil authority to have a right to expect the truth when the truth is cooperation in a greater evil. There is also the question that some theologians will debate in this matter: Are all falsehoods lies or are lies only things told to one who has the right to know? In essence is it a different objective act. Much like legitimate killing is different from murder. Indeed, what makes the distinction is narrow...but it can be argued that what we are talking about is not actually lying because the argument here is that (for example) a Nazi has no moral authority to be asking if there are hidden jews, so they are now owed cooperation in what is evil.

That is another way moral theologians have looked at this. Also that the magnitude of a lie is measured by the truth it deforms. That is another thing I have seen enter this argument.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I think that Davidnic makes some good points. Also, I think that lying to an evil organization like the Nazis, ISIS, or an abortion mill in order to try to save innocent lives would be an attempt to follow the great commandment to love our neighbor.

“And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.'” - Matthew 22:35-40​

 

[MikeK]

I think that Davidnic makes some good points. Also, I think that lying to an evil organization like the Nazis, ISIS, or an abortion mill in order to try to save innocent lives would be an attempt to follow the great commandment to love our neighbor.

“And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.'” - Matthew 22:35-40​

The obvious problem with that line of thinking is that it is doing exactly what we are forbidden to do - evil that good may come. By that reasoning, a person would be able to procure or even perform an abortion if the Nazis said they would kill more people if you didn't. It would be okay to partake in ISIS-style murders if it would end up somehow as a net positive. Our faith does not teach that the outcome dictates the morality of the act. That is why the Bishops who allow for contraceptive use after sexual assault to prevent conception make a point of saying that it isn't /really/ contraceptive if the act is other than conjugal. This is also why, as David noted, theologians have floated the idea that maybe a falsehood isn't really a lie if the person being told the falsehood has no right to the full truth, which I touched on earlier. The problem with all of this is that if we keep on saying "we absolutely must not do this.....unless it is for a good reason", we end up with no morality at all. This girl the exact relitivism that we have been warned of time and again.

 

[LoAmmi]

I disagree with you in that having exceptions means you have no morality. Things merely need to be defined well.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The obvious problem with that line of thinking is that it is doing exactly what we are forbidden to do - evil that good may come.

I disagree with your assertion that it is evil if someone lies in an attempt to save innocent lives from an evil person or organization. God's greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. One is not following the greatest commandment to love our neighbor if they use a lesser law as a legalistic excuse to not care for their neighbor. The Pharisees were doing something like this, and Jesus condemned them for it.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I disagree with your assertion that it is evil if someone lies in an attempt to save innocent lives from an evil person or organization. God's greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. One is not following the greatest commandment to love our neighbor if they use a lesser law as a legalistic excuse to not care for their neighbor. The Pharisees were doing something like this, and Jesus condemned them for it.

You may disagree, but his argument is logically sound and in accordance with Aquinas and Augustine.

See David's argument for another take on how to define an individual who has a right to the truth if you worry about handing someone over to death.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

You may disagree, but his argument is logically sound and in accordance with Aquinas and Augustine.

See David's argument for another take on how to define an individual who has a right to the truth if you worry about handing someone over to death.

Did St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas go so far as to call it evil if someone lies to try to save the lives of innocent people such as the German hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis? Lying to save your own skin perhaps might be different.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Did St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas go so far as to call it evil if someone lies to try to save the lives of innocent people such as the German hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis? Lying to save your own skin perhaps might be different.

Yes, actually. St Augustine wrote De Mendacio in response to that very question. He still concluded that an outright lie would be immoral.

Like I said, David's post offers an alternative position that may be worth considering: that some people - like individuals looking to kill people they uncover - aren't deserving of receiving the truth.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Yes, actually. St Augustine wrote De Mendacio in response to that very question. He still concluded that an outright lie would be immoral.

I want to find what he said so that I can read the context.

Was the context lying about being a Christian to avoid martyrdom?

Edit:

I just looked it up, and St. Augustine does say that we should never tell a lie for any reason.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I want to find what he said so that I can read the context.

Was the context lying about being a Christian to avoid martyrdom?

Edit:

I just looked it up, and St. Augustine does say that we should never tell a lie for any reason.

He was writing in response to the question of whether it would be lawful to lie to save the life of someone. Particularly, a group of people are looking for someone so that they can beat and kill him - is it lawful to say he is not in your house if you are hiding him there?

Here is the full treatise: CHURCH FATHERS: On Lying (St. Augustine)

 

[LivingWordUnity]

He was writing in response to the question of whether it would be lawful to lie to save the life of someone. Particularly, a group of people are looking for someone so that they can beat and kill him - is it lawful to say he is not in your house if you are hiding him there?

Here is the full treatise: CHURCH FATHERS: On Lying (St. Augustine)

But, just as there are venial and mortal sins, I'm sure that lies are not all equal to each other, for example, if someone asks me if I liked what they cooked, and I say "yes, it was fine" when I didn't really like it vs if I teach a heresy.

 

[Davidnic]

Saints, even great ones, are not infallible. But their views should be weighed. But the catechism does guide:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

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 to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Now, someone can say not revealing is not the same as outright lying. But when standing there silent will make them check the attic it is indeed functionally aiding the evil.

Also:

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.

So a lie is not intrinsically evil. If it was then Circumstance and Intention could not modify. Circumstance and Intention can never modify an intrinsically evil objective act.

So with the intention to protect life that is innocent in circumstances where the authority is illegitimate..we must go as conscience guides. I read, discreet language, in the catechism as pretty broad.

 

[Davidnic]

For my part to save a life, against an illegitimate authority and immoral act, I would lie and trust to the mercy of God. It would be, as a sinner, the least of my offenses.

 

[MikeK]

For my part to save a life, against an illegitimate authority and immoral act, I would lie and trust to the mercy of God. It would be, as a sinner, the least of my offenses.

I suspect you'd be pretty safe there. I don't think your previous post proves your statement that a lie is not intrinsically evil though, and I'm almost certain that at least one respected authority has stated that lying is always an evil. What constitutes a lie is certainly up for debate.

I fear we're treading to close to relitivism. Might a lie about a politician or party, intended to do some good, be acceptable? How about lying for the good of the faith, as Muslims are permitted to do? When lying is treated as less than an intrinsic evil, everyone can lie so long as their conscience says they've weighed the variables and determined it just. We have just war doctrine to explain the criteria to be met before and while we make war, we have nothing to weigh the lie.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I fear we're treading to close to relitivism. Might a lie about a politician or party, intended to do some good, be acceptable? How about lying for the good of the faith, as Muslims are permitted to do?

No one has suggested that we should do those things. The discussion has been strictly limited to a situation like the Nazis pounding on the door while you have a Jewish family hiding inside and lying to save their lives.

 

[LoAmmi]

No one has suggested that we should do those things. The discussion has been strictly limited to a situation like the Nazis pounding on the door while you have a Jewish family hiding inside and lying to save their lives.

Life is where my faith draws the line. If someone's life is in direct danger we are allowed to violate the Torah in order to save them because it is believed that human life is one of the most precious things on Earth and letting someone die so you can keep a law is prideful. There are exceptions but those have to do with doing things that are intended to insult or blaspheme HaShem. We don't get to do that to save a life. But, again, it has to be direct danger that would cause them to die if you didn't intervene. We come to this conclusion because David was not punished for eating the bread of the priests even though it carried a death sentence for doing so. But because he was starving, it was just to eat and not die.

Not saying ours is better than yours, I just see a similarity in the way you phrase these things.

 

[RDKirk]

I suspect you'd be pretty safe there. I don't think your previous post proves your statement that a lie is not intrinsically evil though, and I'm almost certain that at least one respected authority has stated that lying is always an evil. What constitutes a lie is certainly up for debate.

I fear we're treading to close to relitivism. Might a lie about a politician or party, intended to do some good, be acceptable? How about lying for the good of the faith, as Muslims are permitted to do? When lying is treated as less than an intrinsic evil, everyone can lie so long as their conscience says they've weighed the variables and determined it just. We have just war doctrine to explain the criteria to be met before and while we make war, we have nothing to weigh the lie.

We're not talking about a lie to "do some good." We're talking about a lie to prevent an evil. I think "just war" theory is applicable to "just deception." How can we somehow determine that there are just circumstances for slaughtering children, yet no just circumstance for telling a lie--not even the same circumstances.

Take the Just War circumstances that permit slaughter: Are you saying that the exact same circumstances do not permit a lie, if a lie would accomplish the same end as slaughter?

 

[Davidnic]

Mike has a legitimate concern and this is partly why Catholic Theology gives no definite on this. When narrowly applied with an understanding of moral theology and with a well formed conscience as a guide...ok. But how many people will take the narrow and exceptional principles here and apply them erroneously. I can see how it can be seen a really skirting moral relativism.

I will say though that an intrinsic evil can never be modified by circumstance or intent. But the Catechism does give that option for the gravity of lying to be modified by circumstance and intention. It also says a lie can be a venial sin as long as it does not damage justice and charity. Intrinsic evils are not venial sins. So I would hold firm that a strong argument can be made that we are not dealing firmly in intrinsic evil. Now, some thinkers and greats of the Church argue the other side convincingly.

So some would argue the Church will not say that it is not a sin to lie, but She will say that in some cases you must may take upon yourself the sin. Evil may never be done to accomplish good so that the evil is seen as a good because of what is accomplished. But we can take the deforming of the truth upon ourselves and trust to the mercy of God.

Again some would argue the nature of it makes it a different objective act. And not a sin.

And some would argue that even to save a life it is not allowable to lie.

All points can be argued. I have seen, and I am sure Gwen too, many class periods taken up by this discussion in moral theology classes.

 

[Davidnic]

Double Post

 

[LoAmmi]

All points can be argued. I have seen, and I am sure Gwen too, many class periods taken up by this discussion in moral theology classes.

And let's go with what we all truly hope and pray for:

Let none of us ever be in such a situation as the ones described.