Lying As Part Of Your Job

[morostheos]

I've been watching the tv show Alias a lot lately (I have it on dvd) and the basic premise of the show is a woman who is a double agent for the CIA and SD6 (an organized crime/terrorist organization) dealing with personal life and professional life and trying to come to grips with telling so many lies to those she cares about the most, because of her classified work. All of her friends think that she works for a bank. Does anyone know what the Church teaching is in regard to lying in a situation like that? I would imagine it would be that it is wrong, but does that mean the a Catholic, in good conscience, could never take an intelligence job where they are not allowed to tell others who they work for?

[Ethos]

I'd imagine that it is a matter of intent. If you are lying to investigate a crime, as would an undercover officer, I can't find any ethical issues there. I used to work for an auto insurance company as a claims adjuster, if I lied to a customer in that case I believe I would be guilty of sin.

[Era Might]

[quote]Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

--CCC #2483[/quote][quote]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 #2489[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

Lying is always wrong.

[quote][b]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:[/b]
6 Q. What is a lie?
A. A lie is a sin which consists in asserting as true or false by word or act that which one does not believe to be really the case.

7 Q. How many kinds of lies are there?
A. There are three kinds: The jocose lie, the officious lie, and the malicious lie.

8 Q. What is a jocose lie?
A. A jocose lie is that which is told in jest and without injury to anyone.

9 Q. What is an officious lie?
A. An officious lie is a false statement to benefit oneself or another without injuring anyone else.

10 Q. What is a malicious lie?
A. A malicious lie is a false statement made to the injury of another.

11 Q. Is it ever lawful to tell a lie?
A. It is never lawful to tell a lie, neither in joke, nor for one's own benefit, nor for the benefit of another, because a lie is always bad in itself.

12 Q. What kind of sin is a lie?
A. A lie when jocose or officious is a venial sin; but when malicious it is a mortal sin if the harm done is grave.

13 Q. Is it always necessary to say all one's mind?
A. It is not always necessary, especially when he who questions you has no right to know what he demands.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM[/url][/quote]

[The Joey-O]

I believe that there's additional teaching when one is acting on behalf of a country in a "battle" type situation (this would be a very loose definition of battle).

[morostheos]

I'm familiar with those passages of the Catechism, but does anyone have any more comments, or something more specific? It's just such a huge arena that happens on a regular basis I would say and I never hear anything said about it in general. Would it be b/c it's not considered a "biggie" in terms of sins? I guess I'm just not satisfied with just leaving it as "all lying is bad" since I mentioned that in my original question.... I dunno, maybe I'm just being difficult....

[johnnydigit]

yikes i didn't realize that lying as a joke was.. not good. not as in a practical joke, but even as, "yes! just kidding, no." it'll be tough but i'll try..

regarding the topic, i wonder if there is any other way an agent could conduct themself without actually lying, but moreso a play on words? i.e. if they must explain their job, they could very well be a cook in some sense, or a banker in some sense. if they were extra holy, they could prepare themselves before a specific encounter.

i don't know about absolutely NEVER lying. what if there is a killer in your house, and he asks where your kids are? if they are hiding, do you tell the killer where they are? i would think there is justification there..

what if an official is asking you for incriminating evidence, say like where to locate your friend for a criminal offense when you know for a fact your friend is innocent, and given the circumstances if tried would be found guilty and locked up for life?

so i think it's safe to say that not lying is sufficient for most any situation, except for extremely rare circumstances, just like murder in defense of the innocent.

[Aloysius]

there is the idea of whether someone has the right to a peice of information. if they do not, then you do not have the obligation to offer them that peice of information. in this case, you cannot directly tell a mistruth, but you can evade in such a way that you are not attempting to make the person believe something untrue, but ony not know something which is true which they do not have the right to know.

this is what it means when Pius X's Catechism says:
13 Q. Is it always necessary to say all one's mind?
A. It is not always necessary, especially when he who questions you has no right to know what he demands.

So one is always morally obligated to tell the truth, not always the whole truth, but always nothing but the truth.

[farglefeezlebut]

A man is allowed to steal food to feed his starving family, on the grounds that the preservation of life is more important than the avoidance of theft.

Does the same apply to lies?

[Budge]

Actually Christians shouldnt steal food.

There is a priomise in the Bible for needs [needs mind you not wants] to be met by God.

A Christian should pray for food....

{sorry for thread tangent}

[jkaands]

I hate to agree with Aloysius, but on this point, I'm going to have to :

One is not obligated to tell ALL of the truth ALL of the time, except under oath on the witness stand. For example, I don't think that you have to volunteer all of the details unless you're asked. You're a teacher in a very conservative state, which forbids gays teaching in the public schools (Spokane, WA). You are asked about a fellow teacher, "Is he gay?" You have seen him coming out of a gay bar with a male companion. You are not obliged to divulge this information. You can respond, "I don't know." DO you KNOW that he's gay? No. If you are asked do you think he's gay, you can answer, "I have no idea". If you are asked, "Have you seen him in circumstances suggesting that he is gay?", you can respond, "Why are you asking me these questions? I have already answered that I have no idea whether he is gay or not" I don't go around prying into people's private lives. " --he may be a church minister ministering to the gay population for all you know.

There is an art to telling people who ask inappropriate, nosy, personal questions to BACK OFF, that you don't know, that you don't go around prying into people's private lives, etc. Adults are particularly guilty of bullying young adults and teens about these matters--which is why there is a strong temptation to lie. But it is possible to develop well-defined boundaries to prevent others from fishing for private information--without lying.

Re lying to the police; it is always unwise to lie. You can be charged with obstructing justice and acting as an accomplice.

A nun told me years ago that it is OK to lie in the sense of protecting against unwanted intruders, the murderer hypothesis, in that the children, or whatever, is not available TO HIM (HER). She called this a "mental reservation".

I grew up always telling the unvarnished truth and ended up offending and upsetting a lot of people. "Does my breath smell? Does this dress make me look fat? AM I fat? Do you like me? " There has to be a way to convey unwelcome information without indulging in the brutal truth. There's always; "I don't know". (well, you don't really KNOW; you may have an opinion, but you don't KNOW all the facts) or a response to personal or inappropriate questions where you don't want to reveal your innermost thoughts and beliefs : "What is your religion?" " I'm a pagan/Wiccan/Buddhist/card-carrying hardcore Phatmass-type Catholic" OR "I never talk religion or politics (with you, a stranger)" OR "Are you a virgin?" "Are you gay?" You can respond: "Why do you want to know?", "These questions are inappropriate."

Double agents are another problem. Lying in public office is a big problem. Because many, (most?) public officials lie and get away with it, ordinary mortals feel that they can too. Bad. Most people can't and many lies can be avoided with skillful evasive tactics and proper application of boundaries.

[Dreamweaver]

I remember reading a similar topic someone asked somewhere else, specifically about a hypothetical situation during WWII. Let's say that you were hiding Jews in your house, and the Gestapo comes knocking and asks, "Are you hiding any Jews?". Since the answerer considered a direct lie to be wrong, you could answer distruthfully (is that even a word) along the lines of "We have no juice in here".

[Quietfire]

Someone asked an interesting question in "This Rock" magazine about lying and when is it ok to lie.
[i]sorry, didnt read the whole post and someone already mentioned this....oooops!![/i]

In reference to WWII. (I dont have it in front of me so Im paraphrasing here)
If one was helping to hide Jews escaping persecution and was asked by the Nazis if they knew where any Jews might be hiding or if they knew if anyone in particular were aiding and abetting Jews.
And that person lied to the Nazis.

Then it would fall under 13Q in the Catachism that St. Thomas More showed above:
13 Q. Is it always necessary to say all one's mind?
A. It is not always necessary, especially when he who questions you has no right to know what he demands.
the Catachism that St. Thomas More showed above:

Edited June 7, 2007 by Quietfire