The nature of a lie

Much time and energy has been wasted in the recent debate about lying – since some have simply refused to accept the definition of a lie as given by the Church and also by philosophy. Here, I will briefly discuss the central points of this definition and offer a few clarifications.

The definition given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Following St. Augustine, the Catechism defines a lie as: “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (2482) This is the definition given in both editions of the Catechism – a point which many have overlooked. Likewise, even the first edition of the Catechism stated that, “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.” (2485)

Finally, we point to an earlier portion of the Catechism, in which the criteria for the evaluation of the morality of human acts are laid out: “The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. […] A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” (1750, 1753)

Lying, according to Sacred Scripture

Isaac, deceived and blessing Jacob

The use of Scripture in the recent debate about lying

In the debate over the moral status of the Live Action sting operations against Planned Parenthood, two examples of “ethical” lying regularly came up in comment boxes and even in the bodies of articles. On the one hand, some referred to the supposed acts of lying which Pope Pius XII employed in order to save the Jews during War II – the historical veracity of this claim is open to some question, for further reading we point to an article in favor of the claim and an article against it [for our part, we suspect that the story is more myth than history].

The example proffered in favor of lying which we will be focusing on in this article, however, is actually a conglomeration of numerous cases taken from Sacred Scripture. Some have claimed not only that many of the holy men and women of the Old Testament lied, but that God himself has lied! We will consider, in particular: Abraham’s claim that Sarah was his sister; the testing of Abraham (according to which some will be so bold as to accuse God of deceiving Abraham with falsehood); the blessing of Jacob in place of Esau; the deception of Pharaoh by the Egyptian midwives; and, from the New Testament, the statement by our Savior that he did not know the day or the hour of his Second Coming (of which some have most impiously claimed that Christ our God spoke a lie in this matter, since he certainly did know the time of the Parousia).

In our first little article, we will consider the broader question of the interpretation of these difficult passages of Scripture. Then, in later articles, we will discuss first the cases involving the Patriarchs, then that involving the midwives, and finally those involving God himself.

May the Christian prepare for the morrow?, or The ant compared to the birds of the air

8^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew 6:24-34

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life. […] Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

In the latter portion of the 13^th and the beginning of the 14^th century, a group within the Franciscan Order felt an intense inspiration to observe the Rule of St. Francis in its primitive severity. They were particularly focused on the life of poverty and, as they understood the Lord’s command, demanded that all Christians forsake private property and embrace the radical simplicity of gospel poverty. This group of Friars Minor, known as the “Spirituals”, was condemned by Pope John XXII in the early 1300s.

We are led to a difficult question when considering the Gospel reading for this Sunday – Does Christ really mean to tell his disciples that they are not to provide for their material needs in any sense? Does the Lord demand absolute poverty from every Christian? Moreover, we might wonder whether it is possible to prepare for the worldly necessities of the future without worrying about tomorrow?

A Response to Peter Kreeft, on lying

 The following article is a contribution by a guest-writer for The New Theological Movement.

The Geometer and the Carpenter: Evaluating the Midwives

It is the sign of a great mind that he can keep seemingly contrary or contradictory statements together at the same time.  I do not say really contrary or contradictory statements together at the same time, for that is the sign of the modern mind.  In light of the recent debate over Live Action’s outing of Planned Parenthood, I have decided to weigh in on the matter in hopes of shedding light with help from the Angelic Doctor, who because of the greatness of his mind, allows us to both affirm that lying is always wrong and praise the actions of Lila Rose, though not for the deception which those actions involved.

Before presenting what I hope is a Thomistic insight into the debate which includes the actions of spies, Dutchmen, 19^th century abolitionists, and Live Action, I wish to express some disagreement with one of the interlocutors in this dialogue. My response to his article will lay the foundation of moral reasoning that is supremely rational and intuitive, neither rationalistic or casuistic nor lax.

Whoever said, "Thou shalt hate thy enemy"?

Joshua destroys the Lord's enemies

7^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew 5:38-48

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies.

Christ our God demonstrates his divine authority in the Sermon on the Mount by giving a New Law which fulfills what had come before. This Law is given with that same authority with which the Old Law had been given to Moses – it is the authority of God who reveals. The Lord speaks with this authority saying, You have heard that it was said … But I say to you …. No mere man could ever speak with such boldness!

And yet we may wonder if Christ does not, in some way, contradict himself – for in giving the New Law he seems to abolish what came before; but he had recently said, Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets (Matthew 5:17). If our Savior came not to destroy but to fulfill the Old Covenant, we may find some difficulty in the command to love one’s enemies. If, in the Old Law, hatred of enemies was commanded (thou shalt hate thy enemy), it would seem that Christ abolishes the Law when he tells us, Love your enemies.

We must ask, whoever said thou shalt hate thy enemy? Was this commanded anywhere in the Law of Moses?

Would the Apostles die before the Second Coming?

Jesus also said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” (Mark 9:1)

These words from this morning’s Gospel reading (in the Ordinary Form) give rise to a certain question: How can it be that the Lord Jesus would tell the disciples that some of them would live until the coming of God’s Kingdom? Does he mean to suggest that they would live until the second coming? What is the Kingdom of which Christ here speaks?

For our answer, we turn to the great Jesuit biblical scholar, Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide (all that follows is from his Commentary on the Gospels).

Questions (and answers) on early Genesis, Part II

As, for the past two weeks, the daily Mass readings in the Novus Ordo have presented the Church with the first eleven chapters of Genesis (from the creation to Abraham), it seemed fitting that we should briefly consider several questions which may arise in the minds of believers who read these passages. There are certainly many fascinating events and stories, and there are many thousands of questions which could be raised, but we are here attempting only to raise a few which seem most profitable and most interesting to us.

In the first part of our little “commentary,” we discussed the six days of creation, the serpent-tempter, the mark of Cain, and the long life-spans of the early Patriarchs. Now, in the second part, we discuss the period before, during and after the great flood. Again, we here intend to give only an answer, not the answer – for surely, in such difficult questions as these, there is room for much diversity of opinion.

It would be most beneficial if we all took the time to re-read these eleven chapters, especially if we have not read them recently (in the past couple of months).