LiveAction, Planned Parenthood and the Truth about Lying (a roundup) (Against the Grain, March 6, 2011) provides an excellent overview of the theoretical issues involved in the debate over lying that were sparked by the sting operation against Planned Parenthood by activist Lila Rose (pictured left) and her organization Live Action.[Hat tip to C.B.]
10 comments:
"There are no damned Jews in this house!" is a perfectly true statement.
Philip: perhaps the way to treat the question is by looking at mental reservation, and the times when it is morally possible, but also by examining situations such as the one I provide, in which no untrue statement is given, but the clear intent is to mislead.
Chris
I think there are a range of possible responses here that may be acceptable, some more demanding than others. St. Thomas is adamantly opposed to lying as intrinsically evil, but even he allows that withholding of data and/or things like feigning ignorance might be acceptable under circumstances. I think Janet Smith has the best moral reasoning in this area in her most recent piece on lying.
On the other hand, I have to squint so see how all those other possibilities short of overt lying aren't very much like lying in some sense. Even in your example, the purpose is to lead the enemy to think that you don't think there are Jews in the house. (And we really don't know whether anyone is or is not damned, so the statement isn't necessarily a true one, or at least no one we can know for certain is true.)
My response would be that there are times in which such misleading and/or lying are perhaps permissible, as Janet Smith suggests.
At the other end of things, however, my other colleague, Mark Latkovic raises the bar considerably in favor of St. Thomas' rigorous schema by suggesting that the most clearly moral answer is to reply that you know where the Jews are but you aren't telling them.
Of course, this places yourself in harm's way, and possibly also the Jews (it's hard to say); but it does keep the exchange on a level where the morality of the alternatives at issue are front and center.
I thought that no one is damned until one is dead and been sent to hell. Therefore would it not be true that there were no "damned" Jews in the house?
Donna
If I may go out on a limb here, one particular aspect of modern "Christians" in America is that we like to whine about how life is unfair. When the thought police arrive, or find the long arm of the law to use against us, why do we whine about the First Amendment instead of observing the First Commandment?
What makes the question of the Jews in WW2 different is that we're not protecting ourselves, but others. By not revealing their location, we may give them time to change it. We may not know if the Jews are in the house: perhaps we didn't ask if they were Jewish?
I find myself siding with those who think we should always tell the truth -- in charity.
Could Lila Rose accomplish the task by other means: could she employ someone who really has been "knocked up" by a 22 year old boyfriend, so she and her consoeurs don't have to be on stage or flirt with lying.
The simple dictum that one may never do evil that good may come of it seems to govern here, even allowing what I said previously.
Chris
Donna,
I can appreciate your point. Two caveats, however. First, the saved and the damned are known only to God in eternity, so whether a person is living or dead in this temporal vale of tears would not seem to put much of a dent in our ignorance about his eternal destiny. Second, the statement therefore still does not evade the tough questions about whether it involves culpable falsehood: its intent is to deceive.
Sheldon I have been dealing with exactly this problem from time to time for as long as I can remember. I was a toddler when WWII ended and raised in the Catholic school system. If memory serves St. Thomas Aquinas allowed for a mental reservation. I can't quite remember what a Sister came up with but it went something like "The Jews are not here" mental reservation "to you". Her statement may have been somewhat different from that.
If you were put in the position of lying to the SS or giving away the Jews, what would you do? That question has been asked through the years and I don't remember anyone saying that he/she would not lie.
Donna
Oh I should have read the other comments. It seems that Dr. Blosser and Chris already dealt with my statement and question to Sheldon. Sorry
Donna
I have another thought about this. Athanasius escaped Julian's wrath “in a boat and started up the Nile, but when it was evident that government officers were following, he asked that the boat reverse its course. The officers presently came alongside and, without suspecting anything wrong, asked if Athanasius had been seen. "He is not far off," replied the man himself.” http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/athanasius_of_alexandra.htm
I have discussed this incident several times with Church History buffs like myself and I cannot remember one person pointing out that St. Athanasius clearly meant to deceive. (one such person is a history prof.)
Donna
Donna,
I love history and history buffs, and I think the St. Athanasius bit is brilliant. As I said previously, I think there's probably a range of possible answers on this issue without violating the commandment against bearing false witness, and I think the debate right now taking place between Catholics by every intention faithful to the Magisterium is evidence of this. God bless. --PB
There's another story about the Holy Family's flight into Egypt, and how the seeds miraculously grew up overnight, leaving the farmer to answer his inquisitors that he had seen such a group of people "when the corn was new".
If my intent is to protect, rather than to deceive, does that make misleading truth-telling ok?
Consider another case, one I like to use with my catechism class: what is the one case in which telling the truth is an excommunicable offence?
God bless,
Chris
Post a Comment