A small detail - which doctor or doctors of the Church stated that under no possible circumstances, could a Christian feel authorised to tell a lie? Not even to a murderous villain, in order to save the life of another person?
St. Augustine the Enchiridion Chapter 22. He states we can never lie even to save a life. He says the good intention may be praised and the sin pardoned but we can never maintain that the action is laudable.
"But every lie must be called a sin, because not only when a man knows the truth, but even when, as a man may be, he is mistaken and deceived, it is his duty to say what he thinks in his heart, whether it be true, or whether he only think it to be true. But every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is Ê evident that speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive one another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. To use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for its appointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there is any lie that is not a sin, because it is sometimes possible, by telling a lie, to do service to another. For it is possible to do this by theft also, as when we steal from a rich man who never feels the loss, to give to a poor man who is sensibly benefited by what he gets. And the same can be said of adultery also, when, for instance, some woman appears likely to die of love unless we consent to her wishes, while if she lived she might purify herself by repentance; but yet no one will assert that on this account such an adultery is not a sin. And if we justly place so high a value upon chastity, what offense have we taken at truth, that, while no prospect of advantage to another will lead us to violate the former by adultery, we should be ready to violate the latter by lying?
It cannot be denied that they have attained a very high standard of goodness who never lie except to save a man from injury; but in the case of men who have reached this standard, it is not the deceit, but their good intention, that is justly praised, and sometimes even rewarded. It is quite enough that the deception should be pardoned, without its being made an object of laudation, especially among the heirs of the new covenant, to whom it is said: "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." And it is on account of this evil, which never ceases to creep in while we retain this mortal vesture, that the co-heirs of Christ themselves say, "Forgive us our debts."
Now. I do not agree with Augustine and think Church teaching gives other options that in some cases it is not even a lie if the person is not owed the truth. But I have covered that in other posts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember Mike is not saying he would let the life be lost. Just that it would still be a lie.