Paul lying?

[MikeK]

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?

I am saying that actions that would be murder outside of a just war are something other than murder in a just war, and that actions that would be contraception outside of sexual assault are not always contraception following a sexual assault, and that perhaps this is also the case for lying.

 

[MikeK]

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.

Is it really true that intrinsic evils cannot be venial sins though? While intrinsic evils are likely all grave matter, that doesn't mean that everyone who cooperates with one sins mortally, or even at all. Masturbation is an intrinsic evil, correct? Yet masturbation might be a mortal sin, it might be a venial sin, or the actor may have no sin on their conscience at all. That doesn't make masturbation not intrinsically evil nor does it give us license to touch. I suspect, but I may be way wrong, that lying is the same. Always evil, never permissible, but sometimes not punishable. God here acts as a policeman on the Interstate, allowing some people to speed unchallenged while still maintaining that anything over the limit is a direct violation of law, but only punnishing grievous offenders.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I fear we're treading to close to relitivism.

Relativism is a denial of the existence of absolute truth. Since relativism says that nothing is really true, a relativist would not even acknowledge that they had told a lie. This means that a relativist can lie all the time and then say that they never lie. An example is how relativists won't recognize that so-called "same-sex marriage" is a lie. Those of us who say that we would likely tell the Nazi pounding at the door that there are no Jews inside in order to save the Jewish family are acknowledging that what we would be doing is lying. Recognition that it is a lie is in a way a recognition that truth exists. Therefore, it is not relativism. So relativism is the denial of the existence of objective truth. But at the other extreme is the danger of legalism. According to the teaching of the Church, between God's Justice and His Mercy, Mercy is the greater of these two attributes of God.

 

[MikeK]

Relativism is a denial of the existence of absolute truth. Since relativism says that nothing is really true, a relativist would not even acknowledge that they had told a lie. This means that a relativist can lie all the time and then say that they never lie. An example is how relativists won't recognize that so-called "same-sex marriage" is a lie. Those of us who say that we would likely tell the Nazi pounding at the door that there are no Jews inside in order to save the Jewish family are acknowledging that what we would be doing is lying. Recognition that it is a lie is in a way a recognition that truth exists. Therefore, it is not relativism. So relativism is the denial of the existence of objective truth. But at the other extreme is the danger of legalism. According to the teaching of the Church, between God's Justice and His Mercy, Mercy is the greater of these two attributes of God.

Is it relativism to say that otherwise murderous acts in a just war are not murder? Is it relativism to say that using contraceptives in line with Church teachings to defend oneself after a sexual assault is not contracepting? Of course, there are many proponents of same-sex marriage who are not relativists at all, they believe that there exists marriage, and that in marriage there is no requirement for there to be both sexes present. Disagreement over what terms mean it should mean is not relativism. I sympathize with what appears to me to be your desire to turn this into a political thread, but take that elsewhere please, this is a serious and hopefully educational discussion.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

It's a sin and you need to go to confession for doing so. But it's a sin, I'm sure many of us would do. Pope Pius XII falsified baptism certificates during WWII to protect jewish people from Germany.

So if you are hiding a Jew and a Nazi asks you "Is this woman a Jew," you say "Yes" ???? Are you serious? .....

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Is it relativism to say that otherwise murderous acts in a just war are not murder? Is it relativism to say that using contraceptives in line with Church teachings to defend oneself after a sexual assault is not contracepting? Of course, there are many proponents of same-sex marriage who are not relativists at all, they believe that there exists marriage, and that in marriage there is no requirement for there to be both sexes present. Disagreement over what terms mean it should mean is not relativism.

No one in this thread has promoted relativism. Relativism is the denial of objective truth, and therefore, denial that anything is a lie. A relativist would not call it a lie. They would say, "There is no such thing as objective truth, therefore, I am not lying." If someone recognizes that something is a lie then they are not a relativist since saying that something is a lie requires a belief in the moral absolute that something is true.

I sympathize with what appears to me to be your desire to turn this into a political thread, but take that elsewhere please, this is a serious and hopefully educational discussion.

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Can we discuss this without personal attacks?

 

[MikeK]

No one in this thread has promoted relativism. Relativism is the denial of objective truth, and therefore, denial that anything is a lie. A relativist would not call it a lie. They would say, "There is no such thing as objective truth, therefore, I am not lying." If someone recognizes that something is a lie then they are not a relativist since saying that something is a lie requires a belief in the moral absolute that something is true.Ad hominem logical fallacy. Can we discuss this without personal attacks?

I asked you direct questions. If you cannot answer them, please have the decency not to speak to me, as I don't have time for people who will not invest in a conversation and challenge themselves. Relativism is the denial of objective truth - for example, the position that lies aren't objectively evil but that their morality slides on a scale based on their result. That is a relativistic position. The position that believes people have a right to marry regardless of their gender is not a relativistic one. What the truth actually /is/ has no bearing on what we're addressing.

I did not personally attack you, and if you think that that was a "personal attack" I'm going to have a very difficult time having any conversation with you, as I don't think I'll be able to respect you if you continue with such. You can call positions contrary to yours ad hominems and misapply all matter of logical fallacies to your heart's content, but all that does is kill good discussion and I'd prefer you stick to the matters at hand.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

MikeK,

I explained what relativism is. But calling into question someone's motives and character is the definition of the ad hominem which you did to me in your post. I brought up abortion in one post and marriage in another in relation to the OP topic of lying because they directly pertain to the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals. The Catholic Church does not see marriage and abortion as being merely political. If I mention the name of a political party or political candidate it would be political. But I did not do that.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Quoted from post #49:

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.

Thank you. The Exodus chapter 1 example of the Hebrew midwives lying to save the babies from Pharaoh is exactly like the Hitler Nazi Germany scenario. I can also see a parallel with that to lying to save a baby from an abortion mill.

15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph′rah and the other Pu′ah, 16 “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. 18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives, and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God he gave them families. - Exodus 1:15-21 (RSV-CE)​

 

[Gwendolyn]

Relativism isn't only a denial of objective or absolute truth. Relativism is also found in the human tendency to rationalise anything and everything we do so that we can avoid admitting we have done something sinful. Justifying sin is also relativism.

In this thread, David & I have given two prominent, solid moral arguments re: lying, and yet this thread has gone on for pages beyond that still arguing about things David & I already addressed. I know we like to focus on extremes here, especially where Nazis are concerned (why do they always work their way into our discussions?)... but the question is answered.

Is it moral to lie to save a life?
Augustine & Aquinas: No, but you can do your best to conceal or omit the truth.
Other moral theologians: Yes, if the individual asking has no right to the truth (meaning, they will commit atrocities if given the truth).

There's your answer.

Lying to a woman about abortion isn't the same issue. You wouldn't be justified in lying to her - promise her things that don't exist, tell lies about the procedure itself, give her misleading, inaccurate medical information - because you want her to birth her child. She would have a right to the truth in that situation. Besides, do you not think that women should know about the horrors of abortion? Do you not think that they should be fully aware of what accompanies their choice to destroy a life?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Relativism isn't only a denial of objective or absolute truth. Relativism is also found in the human tendency to rationalise anything and everything we do so that we can avoid admitting we have done something sinful. Justifying sin is also relativism.

How is it rationalizing when it is based on Scripture? What is your opinion of the Hebrew midwives lying to save the babies from Pharaoh and how God blessed them for doing this?

15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph′rah and the other Pu′ah, 16 “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. 18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives, and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God he gave them families. - Exodus 1:15-21 (RSV-CE)​

Is it moral to lie to save a life?
Augustine & Aquinas: No, but you can do your best to conceal or omit the truth.
Other moral theologians: Yes, if the individual asking has no right to the truth (meaning, they will commit atrocities if given the truth).

That's a good summary of the two positions. But the latter position also seems to have support in Scripture.

Lying to a woman about abortion isn't the same issue. You wouldn't be justified in lying to her - promise her things that don't exist, tell lies about the procedure itself, give her misleading, inaccurate medical information - because you want her to birth her child. She would have a right to the truth in that situation. Besides, do you not think that women should know about the horrors of abortion? Do you not think that they should be fully aware of what accompanies their choice to destroy a life?

When it comes to the woman who wants to get an abortion there is never a need for Pro-Life activists to lie to her. It's the abortion providers who rely on lying to the women and young girls. They lie to them telling them that it's not a baby and that it's "just a clump of cells." But Pro-Life activists tell her the truth. And we show her ultrasound pictures that show that it's a baby. The abortion mills don't want her to see this because if she realizes that an abortion means that she would be killing her own baby and not just "terminating a clump of cells" she would be less likely to go through with it. There have been times when a Pro-Life activist has lied to an abortion provider. Lila Rose went undercover and posed as an underage girl in order to expose how the abortion providers routinely enable the crime of statutory rape by encouraging underage girls to get abortions. But that's different than lying to the woman. It is actually exactly like what the Hebrew midwives did by lying to Pharaoh in order to save babies from being slaughtered.

I know we like to focus on extremes here, especially where Nazis are concerned (why do they always work their way into our discussions?)

It's because most people know about the Holocaust. I used that extreme example in order to make it clear that my argument is limited only to an extreme circumstance like this where the life or death of innocents is on the line. An important thing to keep in mind is that the kind of lie that we've been talking about is not one that denies the faith.

 

[Gwendolyn]

How is it rationalizing when it is based on Scripture?

Hi LWU, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was just making a general comment about how relativism can also take the form of justifying/rationalising one's beliefs. Sort of like how a lot of people say, "Jesus preached love and told us not to judge" in order to rationalise their acceptance of behaviours that Catholicism considers immoral.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hi LWU, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was just making a general comment about how relativism can also take the form of justifying/rationalising one's beliefs. Sort of like how a lot of people say, "Jesus preached love and told us not to judge" in order to rationalise their acceptance of behaviours that Catholicism considers immoral.

Then, just like lying, you have to get into a discussion about what acceptance is and what it means!

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Hi LWU, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was just making a general comment about how relativism can also take the form of justifying/rationalising one's beliefs. Sort of like how a lot of people say, "Jesus preached love and told us not to judge" in order to rationalise their acceptance of behaviours that Catholicism considers immoral.

There's a difference. The example you are giving is someone taking something out of its context and adding their spin to it. But the example of the Hebrew midwives clearly shows that they lied to Pharaoh as a way of saving some of the babies from death. And the text then clearly says that God blessed them for the choice they had made. There's no spin that is needed.

 

[MikeK]

There's a difference. The example you are giving is someone taking something out of its context and adding their spin to it. But the example of the Hebrew midwives clearly shows that they lied to Pharaoh as a way of saving some of the babies from death. And the text then clearly says that God blessed them for the choice they had made. There's no spin that is needed.

In your estimation, is it more likely that St Augustine was ignorant of this example and is wrong or that your opinion is wrong and you don't have the wisdom that he did and are missing something?

 

[LoAmmi]

In your estimation, is it more likely that St Augustine was ignorant of this example and is wrong or that your opinion is wrong and you don't have the wisdom that he did and are missing something?

Though Augustine didn't comment on it, I wonder if the fact that it was blessed made it ok. It was after the fact in the text, but it would go back to the idea that if it is sanctioned by the Holy One, it is considered moral regardless of the act.

 

[MikeK]

Though Augustine didn't comment on it, I wonder if the fact that it was blessed made it ok. It was after the fact in the text, but it would go back to the idea that if it is sanctioned by the Holy One, it is considered moral regardless of the act.

There is that. By extension of principal, no reasonable person would conclude that tying their child to a rock and threatening to kill him is acceptable behavior that will prove to God how much you love him.

 

[LoAmmi]

There is that. By extension of principal, no reasonable person would conclude that tying their child to a rock and threatening to kill him is acceptable behavior that will pave to God how much you love him.

Indeed. Abraham had a relationship with Him that we don't have. Well, I don't have anyway. I'd be skeptical of anybody who claimed to have one on here too.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Though Augustine didn't comment on it, I wonder if the fact that it was blessed made it ok. It was after the fact in the text, but it would go back to the idea that if it is sanctioned by the Holy One, it is considered moral regardless of the act.

Theoretically... Scripture shows God as blessing many behaviours and actions that would otherwise be considered immoral if He did not bless them (incest to populate the world, genocide to wipe out pagan tribes, etc). So that might be a possibility. However, I do not know why Augustine chose to rely on reason instead of including Scriptural examples. I also don't have Aquinas' Summa on hand to see if he references anything (but he was very meticulous about referencing scripture and other documents).

 

[RDKirk]

I'd point out that Augustine was in an environment in which there was an underlying need to incorporate the Greek concepts of reason as much as possible. I'm not judging that at all, but pointing out that much like today, there was some social pressure to make Christianity rationale and protect it from accusations of capriciousness. This was especially so because Christianity was in his time being blamed by those still following the old Graeco-Roman religions for the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west.