Yesterday I read through a good bit of the great debate over the morality of Live Action’s Planned Parenthood stings. I wanted to address two errors I’m seeing in the comboxes that deal with just the basics on lying and telling the truth. One is the question of social lies (“Do you like my haircut?”), and I’ll answer that one second. The other is this:
“No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.” (CCC 2489)
Now there’s quite a lot of noise about how the catechism was revised back in paragraph 2483 to clarify the definition of lying, specifically to remove the qualifer “to those who have a right to the truth”. But 2489 stands as written. Because here’s what: Withholding the truth from someone does not require lying!
–> What the catechism is saying, is that we don’t have to live in a talk-show tell-all universe. Everybody doesn’t have a right to know everyone else’s private business. Scrupulous followers of the 10 Commandments might have thought otherwise, thinking that the commandment to tell the truth means we have to tell the whole truth to anyone who asks and a lot of people who don’t. Not so.
***
This is an everyday practical topic, and if you have grown up in a culture that considers lying AOK, you might want some tips on ways to legitimately withhold the truth from someone who has no right to know. So here are some choices for you:
- Say nothing at all. My husband has a right to know how our income taxes are coming along. I have an obligation to discuss the situation truthfully and completely. In contrast, if a friend of mine shares some private detail of her personal life, and asks me to keep it strictly confidential, (we are assuming it has no bearing on anything to do with my husband), my job is to just keep my mouth shut. I probably shouldn’t even mention the conversation at all, if I can help it.
- Refuse to answer. SuperHusband was interviewing a contractor, and inquired what kind of wages the guy’s workers earned. (The concern: Are they earning a fair wage? It was a field where workers are often not paid decent wages.) The contractor answered very simply, “That is none of your business.” Fair enough. Takes guts to say that sometimes, so go ahead and practice. Gentler options are, “I’m not at liberty to say”, “that is a private matter”, “I’m afraid I cannot answer that”, “that is not something I can discuss with you”. No further explanation required.
- Answer the underlying question. My son comes to me demanding to know whether his little sister got a piece of Halloween candy. What he really wants to know? Did I get cheated, mom? Are you favoring her? So I’m entirely within my right to simply answer, “Everyone will get a fair amount of candy.”
- Answer a more relevant question. Same child comes to me asking, “Where is my Halloween candy?” I reply with the more pertinent topic: “Where is your math homework?”
- Provide a suitably general answer. A student needs to be excused from class to attend to an embarrassing situation. Everyone of course wants to know where she’s going. (Keep in mind in the classroom, usually students raise their hand and give a reason they want to be excused — bathroom visit, drink of water, etc.). It may be more considerate to the embarrassed student to provide a true but vague answer. “She needed to go to the restroom”, not “she was about to throw up all over the place”. “I needed her to tell something to the DRE for me”, not “She was about to burst out crying about a family situation”. “She needed to leave early tonight”, not “She has really bad cramps and wants to go home”. It’s nobody’s business why she needs to go the ladies’ room, speak to the DRE, or call her mom to pick her up early. There is nothing dishonest about keeping private situations private, and no lie is required. The 8th commandment does not require us to tell every detail.
There you go. Five ways you can legitimately withhold the truth from people who have no right to know.
***
Social Lying. This is the other one people have been tossing about as a way to somehow prove that it’s fine to lie under this or that circumstance. Now we can debate all day whether undercover operations or visits from the Gestapo are situations where lying is acceptable. But there is no sting operation involved when your co-worker asks “Do you like my new shoes?” And I don’t care what time of the month it is, your wife is not a Nazi when she asks what you think of her outfit.
So don’t lie. Just don’t. It’s a bad habit, and it builds unhealthy relationships.
If the relationship is insecure, you need to work on the underlying problem. A woman who feels loved, is confident of your respect for her, and has a strong sense of her own style, doesn’t get all paranoid about her looks. If the person you are married to is constantly going berserk because you don’t recite long poems in honor of her new shade of lipstick, maybe you need to work on the relationship a little? Maybe you need to back off on the unsolicited “constructive criticism”, ratchet the genuine compliments up a notch, and reassure her in word and action that you are absolutely hers.
Answer the underlying question. For the most part, women who show you a new outfit just want to share their joy. She is beautiful, so tell her so. She has a sense of style all her own, just go with it. She’s not asking you to wear the fuchsia shoes for goodness sakes, how hard is it to enjoy them on someone else? That’s not lying. “I wish I had a hat just like that,” is lying. “It’s totally you,” that’s the truth.
–> This is confusing for men, because they ask for help getting dressed because they really don’t know what to wear. Like, they really don’t even know if their jacket and slacks have the same color brown in them. This is why men dress exactly the same as each other. Your wife is generally not asking for a technical inspection. If she is, she’ll ask a very specific question, such as “does this blouse clash?” or “do you think the long skirt or the short one works better?” So the rule is this: Specific question = specific answer. General question = general answer. Your wife is beautiful. It isn’t lying to tell her so.
Pleasantries. Pleasantries aren’t lying. It is understood they are social conventions that have contextual meaning. When the secret police come to your door and ask if you are hiding any refugees, it goes like this:
“Good morning, Mrs. Fitz. How are you today?”
“Fine thank you.” <– Nobody is under the illusion I am fine. The secret police are at my door. I am not fine. But it isn’t a lie because we all know this is a social convention.
“You don’t happen to have this man hiding in your attic?” (Shows picture of the man who is hiding in my attic.)
“________________” <– That’s where I’m supposed to answer something. If I lie, it is likely at most a venial sin. (Assuming I am hiding an innocent man, etc etc.) But I shouldn’t kid myself that it’s a social convention. He didn’t ask if I liked his uniform or what I thought of the weather. He’s looking for a clear answer. Now he doesn’t have the right to know the truth, so I can choose to use one of the options above. But lying would be lying, and in our moral analysis we shouldn’t confuse it with some other thing.
I really like this. This is helpful.
I don’t have to share all information, especially with people who have no right to know it.
This will be my mantra. My husband is so good at not answering but I feel the awkward silence too heavily.
I’m glad it’s helpful! Yay.
….Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see the critics of Lila Rose actually address the issue of the lie that saves lives.
While the prof does mention police undercover operations, he does not provide an argument why lying during these operations is wrong.
Plus, if you were to use any of the above suggestions under intense circumstances?
“Are there Jews in the house?”
“I’m not going to answer that.”
….you just killed them off. And likely your family, too.
I still enjoy your blog, Jennifer, and you, too! You’ve done me many a good turn and I appreciate it. However, I still have yet to see a compelling argument for the kind of criticism Lila Rose is receiving, esp from those of use who are on her side in the Abortion fight.
JDM
I left the blank intentionally — I really wanted in this post to just clear up a lot random distractions I’m seeing elsewhere. When we get back to the debate topic, we should do it without confusing what the question really is.
If I were summarize my understanding of Chris T’s argument in shorthand, it would be: Lying is inherently destructive to your soul. [He gives reasons why he thinks so.] Saving lives is good, but you can’t use evil means to do that good.
–> I was thinking last night: Maybe the Tollefsen attic isn’t your first choice of hideouts :-). [If you wish to die in good company, then yes.] I agree with you it would take extraordinary cleverness, luck, and divine assistance to avoid lying and still come out alive.
I think my question revolves around the nature of lying. Is it like killing, where there are certain situations it is morally permissible?
If yes, then you can make a defense of Live Action. (It may or may not apply, but you can mount the defense.)
And no, I never would have even given the question thought if it hadn’t become the hot internet topic. I was pretty pleased with the sting myself. In a disgusted-and-stunned-by-the-face-of-evil kind of way. (Topic for another post. Add to my backlog.) Edited to clarify: disgusted by PP. Not by Live Action.
First, very few people are “criticizing” or “condemning” Lila Rose in this debate. Tollefson, Shea, Hargrave & co. are all simply pointing out that what she’s doing is intrinsically evil *regardless of whether it saves lives*. Intrinsic evil does not mean “What she’s doing is as bad as abortion” or “What she’s doing is worse than abortion” or “She’s going to hell.”
It just means it’s a wrong tactic.
The reason the debate is so important, besides its implications for the decisions we make every day, particularly those who are in certain fields (and almost all of us, I think, find ourselves compelled to lie as part of our jobs from time to time), is the fear of consequentialism.
Most of the “anti-lying” columnists and bloggers are far more concerned with pro-lifers saying “but she’s saving lives!” than they are about Lila Rose herself.
The ends never justify the means. We can never do evil that good may come of it.
That’s the basic concern they’re raising.
“Now he doesn’t have the right to know the truth, so I can choose to use one of the options above.”
I could choose one of them too, and when they don’t work and the fugitive is dragged away, instead of worrying about ‘fessing up to lying I’d have a far more serious sin of omission to confess to.
If killing can be permissible, then surely lesser sins would be also permissible without the Church needing to enumerate them all.
<>
I think that gets to the heart of the debate. Or more accurately: is lying in that sort of situation a sinful lie at all?
Killing in legitimate self defense is not murder. Nothing to confess, no moral conflict. (Likewise amputation, sterilization, etc etc, where there is a genuine medical need.)
Is lying like that? Sort of a killing or chopping-off of the truth, but that for serious reasons may be resorted to?
Or is lying more like an extension of apostasy? Forgiveable, of course, but a sin all the same? The desire to preserve life does not justify apostasy.
(Actual culpability of course being subject to the usual limitations, but let’s start with the objective analysis. I don’t think the pastoral response to lying to the Nazis is really in question.)
Why do you think lying is going to work, when most interrogators are trained to detect lying, and when they’re going to presume you’re lying, anyway?
“I still have yet to see a compelling argument for the kind of criticism Lila Rose is receiving”
If their objection is in the lies, then next time she should hire a real pimp and prostitute to do her filming: no-one would have to lie.
I don’t have exact answers, but I read a wonderful book one time called “God’s Smuggler”. Perhaps you have heard of Brother Andrew who brought Bibles in behind the Iron Curtain before it fell? He told his team members to never lie. One time, two girls were crossing a dangerous border when the guard right out asked them, “Do you have any Bibles?” They burst out laughing and said, “Why yes! The car is FULL of them!” The guard took it as a joke and waved them through. 🙂
I don’t have the answers, but I do think the Holy Spirit provides ways beyond the ways of men.
I need to read that book. (It is sitting on my shelves.) _The Hiding Place_ also grapples with the question, and has one similar story. Excellent book, highly recommended.
Stories like this are the ones I always use on this topic. Years ago, I read the memoir of one of the guardians of the Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, and he tells all sorts of stories about how they were miraculously protected when smuggling the statue into Communist or Muslim countries–including soldiers staring straight at the statue and seeing nothing.
As for “social lying,” as you know, I’m known for my brutal honesty and complete lack of concern for social norms.
If you ask me if I like your new shoes, I’ll most likely say, “Do they fit? Are they comfortable? Other than that, who cares about shoes?! They’re there to protect your feet! What’s it matter what they look like? That’s just vanity! I wear trifocals. Anything south of middle vision is a blur unless I’m 2 inches away from it.”
And, as you say, it’s about the underlying issues in the relationship. Mary always phrases the question as, “Do you like this shirt/dress/pants?” and never as “Does this make me look–“.
Then, if I say I *do* like it, she figures it’s too sexy and changes into something else. . . .