Can we lie to save lives?
Update: My argument in this post is based on the wording of the original version of the Catechism, which was later changed. See this post for more details.
One of the classic moral dilemmas of the 20th century was the case of hiding Jews during Nazi Germany. If a Nazi officer comes to the door asking if any Jews are in the house, are you morally permitted to lie to the officer in order to protect the lives of those Jews hiding within? Unfortunately, this is not just a theoretical or historical question, but has real-world applications in today’s abortion-satiated world. Case in point:
Lila Rose, the 21-year-old leader of the group Live Action, posed as a 14-year-old seeking an abortion who was told by a clinic employee that she could have someone with the same last name approve the procedure. State health officials subsequently determined that nine minors had received abortions from the clinic without proper verification of parental consent.
Rose, who converted to Catholicism last year, has been criticized by abortion groups for using deceptive tactics. In reply, she cited Europeans hiding Jews during the Holocaust and the biblical example of Rahab hiding Israelite spies.
I can tell you that in my own pro-life activism experience, I encountered similar situations in which we had to be less than truthful in order to successfully work against abortion clinics. So, was Ms. Rose justified? Is it moral to lie in order to save lives?
The answer is that telling an untruth in such a situation is not a lie, and therefore it can be moral to be deceptive in such situations. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a “lie” in the following way:
To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who as the right to know the truth. (CCC 2483)
So there are three conditions that have to be in place to make a statement a lie:
(1) “Speak or act against the truth”: In other words, the words or actions have to be not true.
(2) “In order to lead into error”: A misspoken word or erroneous statement said in ignorance is not a lie.
(3) “someone who as the right to know the truth”: Here is the key component for the situation we are discussing: does a Nazi guard or Planned Parenthood employee who plans to kill an innocent life have the right to the truth? Of course not.
So we cannot “lie” to save a life, but we can tell an untruth if necessary, but in doing so, that is not a lie.
Now we need to be careful with this definition. It can too easily be used to justify almost any untruth: “My parents didn’t have the right to know that I was out at that party.” “My wife doesn’t have the right to know what I’m doing on my computer in my free time.” I would posit that only extreme situations really call for even the possibility of that third condition being applicable. But if saving the innocent life of an unborn baby is not an “extreme situation”, what is?
God bless you, Ms. Rose, and keep up the good work!
Where did you find the CCC quote? I guess you didn’t look it up yourself because the CCC does NOT give “someone who has a right to know” as a condition. I suggest you give the catechism another look and remove this article ASAP.
I agree with Richard’s reply. In no way and for no reason and at no time is it morally permissible to tell a lie. Everyone has a right to be communicated the truth when he or she asks it of us. It seems a right guaranteed by natural law. Divine law also stipulated not to tell a lie (not that you may lie to people who you don’t think deserve the truth). I am sure St. Thomas agreed with this. I think the “out” that you are looking for is referred to as a mental reservation. This involves the act not of “telling untruths,” but of not revealing unnecessary information sufficient for answering the question. So, in the case of Nazis at your door you could say TRUTHFULLY, “I did not any Jews into this house,” or “I haven’t seen any Jews in my house.” (assuming its not your house), or “I do not see any Jews in this house” (while looking into the house, no Jews should in fact be visible (as they would be hiding).
The quotation from the CCC is a quotation from the first edition. In the official corrections that were issued later, the “has a right to know the truth” business was removed.
It’s necessary either to have the correct edition or to have the published corrections.
If you want to defend lying (against the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine), you can’t rely on the CCC!
Michael Gorman
I have written a new post addressing the change in the Catechism. I still believe that one can tell an untruth if the person does not have the right to the truth (which is rare), but obviously I can’t base that argument on the language of the (revised) Catechism.
Yes, there is a misquote here but do not be so quick to decry Mr. Sammons’ stance. Right to truth, use of discreet language, misleading for the sake of the greater good – they all come into play in the Catechism’s discussion on the 8th Commandment. There is also the question of the gravity of a lie, which the Catechism brings up in paragraph 2484.
While a lie in itself is never inherently good, not all lies are equal in their immorality. Just like killing someone is never inherently good but when it occurs in genuine self-defense, the perpetrator is not guilty of the sin of murder. Heck, sometimes telling, rather than witholding, the truth is the evil action when it is told maliciously and to inflict harm. Witholding is certainly different than directly lying, but it does shed light on the fact that it is not so crystal clear as we may wish it to be.
I guess all I’m getting at is the gravity of a lie’s sinfulness is not black and white. We must hold ourselves accountable and not rationalize lies against our consciences’ better judgment but also we must leave the final judgment to God alone. He knows our hearts, our motives and intentions – both the good and bad of them – and He takes all of it into account.
I commend Ms. Rose for her work and hope she will constantly evaluate her methods and her conscience, following the guidance of the Holy Spirit’s promptings at all times.
“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.
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.”
(CCC 2488-2489, copied directly from the USCCB website)
Whatever definition we decide to assign to the word “lie”, I agree with your earlier analysis in the abstract. The obligation to tell the truth is not absolute – there are indeed cases where someone is demanding an answer to which they are not entitled. It would be best in such cases to simply refuse to answer, but in certain instances (such as the Nazi example) silence essentially amounts to giving them the answer to which they are not entitled. In those cases, I think we would understand that it is licit to act or speak in such a way as to deceive them. A similar analysis to that used for the poor man “stealing” a loaf of bread (property rights are not absolute).
However, I’m dubious about the applicability in the particular example cited. Ms. Rose wasn’t deceiving in order to save someone from immediate harm – she was lying in order to obtain information about what a certain clinic was doing. This is not at all the same sort of thing. Killing a knife-wielding maniac to prevent him from stabbing a small child is one thing; blowing up a clinic to prevent any more abortions from being performed there is something altogether different.
Jscriven wrote: “Everyone has a right to be communicated the truth when he or she asks it of us.”
No, they don’t. Sometimes people have no right at all to an answer (“How much money do you make?”, “What did you tell Father at your last confession?”, “What was it that our mutual friend X told you in confidence but asked you not to tell me?”).
As I stated above, in _some_ such cases, evading the question is tantamount to giving the answer. Your tactic of “not revealing unnecessary information” is fine, but it only preserves you from lying in a very narrow, literal sense. You are still deliberately deceiving the person you’re talking to. I don’t see how this really helps preserve an absolute prohibition against lying.
Wow this article is way off. If you lie you commit sin against the ten commandments. If you want to join those that are gnashing their teeth then sure you can go into a abortion clinic and try to fool them with your own lies but you do not have Jesus behind you on that one. You become like those in the abortion clinic…filled with sin. The way we live our lives is an example. Remember Jesus answered Pilots questions always truthfully.
When the Nazis knock on my door, I will not tell them I have Jews hidden. I will try to save the lives of innocent people, who are unjustly pesecuted. After the incident, I will with the help of God’s grace, confess my sins, do pennance, and ammend my life.
That is what I hope to do. When the forces of evil knock on your door, you have no idea how you will react. I can only pray that afterward when I meet the Lord face to face, he says “Well done, thou true and faithful servant”.
Almost agree with Marquis Crocker – the only exception being, if I am willing to lie under such circumstances (which I probably am) I cannot confess it with the intention of ‘ammending my life’ in that respect, knowing that I would probably willingly do it again.
At the final judgment, I’d have to throw myself on the mercy of the Court.
But we should note something: if all forms of untruth that intentionally lead to deception are wrong, then things like undercover police operations and giving misleading information to an enemy during wartime are immoral.
One more thing – if I’m not mistaken, the Vatican itself helped many Jews during the war by supplying falsified documents – passports and baptismal certificates (depending on the circumstances, those would sometimes help).
About the only justification I can think of is the amputation of an infected limb analogy… you are taking the steps necessary to prevent a great evil. If there is a lesser, sort-of-unintended side effect – someone is deceived – well, then a measure of proportionality comes into play. And yes, I know this analogy is far from perfect…
The Vatican during WWII worked with many countries to get fake passports issued for thousands of jews, in order to protect them from the nazis. Isn’t that lying to save innocent lives? What’s the difference, and were they wrong for doing that?
Marquis Crocker states: “After the incident, I will with the help of God’s grace, confess my sins, do pennance, and ammend my life.”
I contest that stance on the reasoning that to commit a sin by premeditation with the intent to take the sacrament of penance voids any form of true contrition that would otherwise may have existed. We as Catholics act foolishly and presumptuously when we try to thwart the goal of the sacraments and the graciousness of God. Contrition is performed for repentance for the wrong we have done. It means that we acknowledge our guilt, our wrong, our fault. This sin would have been committed with the additional sin of self-righteousness, no real contrition would exist for something that you felt you were morally justified in doing and reduces the grace of the sacrament to a simple farce and an injustice against the Church, natural law, and God himself.
USER Barry,
You spoke about the issuance of passports to Jews in order to protect them from the Jews. What I think you are referencing are the emergency passports that Pius XII had countries (mainly in Latin America) provide for thousands of Jews. These passports were issued and the Jews were protected from deportation. No lie was necessary in the providing of these passports. Passports are legal instruments certifying citizenship of individuals issued by legal and recognized governments.
[...] Eric Sammons, a Catholic speaker and head of evangelization at St. John Neumann parish, writes (emphasis is ours): Can we lie to save lives? [...]
Pingback by Silencing Spencer: Taqiyya and Kitman are part of Judeo-Christian Belief | Spencer Watch — August 15, 2010 @ 12:05 pm[...] Eric Sammons, a Catholic speaker and head of evangelization at St. John Neumann parish, writes (emphasis is ours): Can we lie to save lives? [...]
Pingback by Silencing Spencer: Taqiyya and Kitman are part of Judeo-Christian Belief | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper — August 17, 2010 @ 10:15 am