A Fine but Sacred Line
What Lying, Nazis, and Hairsplitting Teach us about Morality
Is it ever ok to lie? It’s a surprisingly tricky question. If you’ve signed off on being a Christian, you’re locked into a hard ‘no.’ Scripture makes it clear that a believer will detest falsehood.1 And Jesus’ teaching shows us that lying is a part of Satan’s very nature; by lying we make him our spiritual father.2 The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls lying the most direct offense against the truth, and says that it is to be condemned by its very nature.3 When we lie we give up on truth and goodness. Instead of relying on God’s protection and letting the chips fall where they may, we seek refuge in a twisted parallel reality of our own making. And as lies build on lies, we sooner or later find out that holding reality together is much harder than God makes it look. Eventually, in one way or another, we discover that we’re not suited to the job, and we suffer the consequences of our cowardice.
But if you’ve ever tried to defend or consistently live out this teaching, you’ve probably at some point found yourself lost in a thicket of challenging dilemmas and tricky cases. Not only are there cases where lying seems perfectly justified (e.g. to save a life), there are even multiple scripture passages where ‘the good guys’ lie without any clear indication that what they did was wrong.
My friend recently texted me to ask about the story of Rahab. Rahab was a Canaanite woman who hid Israelite spies in her home. When enemy soldiers came searching for the spies, Rahab told them that the spies had fled, even though they were still in the house.4 According to the Catechism’s definition of lying - speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving - that seems like a pretty clear cut lie.5 Not only does Rahab receive no criticism for this, the scriptures, as well as both Jewish and Christian interpretive tradition - have enshrined her as a moral and spiritual exemplar.6
My friend could have also brought up the Hebrew midwives who lied to Pharaoh rather than commit infanticide.7 She could have even brought up Jacob’s deception of Isaac (although in that story the deception carries clear negative consequences).8 But we quickly decided that these passages don’t necessarily support the idea that lying is ok. Along with Augustine, we concluded that scripture honors Rahab because of her benevolent intention, not necessarily her deception itself.9 And as we’ll see below, it’s not a given that Rahab and the others were actually lying.
More generally, the Old Testament shows us how God works in the midst of human messiness. And since the lives of even highly esteemed Biblical figures were so messy, their examples make for a murky guide. The book of Judges, which at times reads like a screenplay co-written by Mel Gibson and Quentin Tarantino, ends with the line “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Hardly a ringing endorsement, and certainly one of many clues that we can’t apply everything we read in the Old Testament at face value. This is why the Church, while holding fast to the universal and timeless validity of the Old Testament, acknowledges that “it contains matters imperfect and provisional...”10 The bottom line is that you’re on thin ice when you call a commonly accepted Christian principle into question based on something you read in the Old Testament.
So scripture doesn’t give us the wiggle room we thought it might. But in some cases it seems like that wiggle room would come in handy. My friend asked me about the Anne Frank scenario: Suppose you’re hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis in your house. A gestapo officer comes to your door and asks, “are you hiding any Jews in your house?” What do you say?
I think that if we can know anything about morality, we can know that the Jewish family’s right to life outweighs whatever (if any) right the Nazi has to know the truth. For Catholics, the matter is further clarified by the Catechism. While it identifies lying as an intrinsic evil, it balances this with the common sense insight that “the right to the communication of truth is not unconditional.”11 So although we can’t lie, we must somehow conceal the full truth from the Nazi.
But here’s the rub: if you try to deceive the officer without denying that you have Jews in your house (e.g. staying silent, answering evasively, or changing the subject), it would be a dead giveaway that you’re hiding something, and the officer would search your home. Only a straightforward and confident denial will satisfy the officer. Does this corner us into having to tell a lie?
St Raymund of Pennafort’s solution to scenarios like this was that you should make a mental reservation i.e. you should answer the question truthfully but equivocally.12 For example, you could say something like “there are no Jews here” without lying, if by *here* you mean *on my front porch.* Remember that lying involves two things: 1) speaking a falsehood, and 2) the intent to deceive. You certainly intended to deceive the officer, but you haven’t spoken a falsehood: there are no Jews on your front porch. Of course you know that the officer thinks that by *here* you meant *in my house.* But Raymund would say that you don’t have an obligation to volunteer the fact that you’re using the word according to a different meaning. So, according to this theory, although you deceived the officer, you did not lie to him. You simply allowed him to misunderstand you.
When I first heard of this solution, I saw it as nothing more than a hairsplitting cop-out. After all, in any other setting besides a philosophy library we’d call that lying. That’s what it means in plain speech and in law. But if I could go back I’d tell past John to hold his horses. If it’s a genuine distinction, then it’s intellectually lazy (albeit rhetorically persuasive) to call it hairsplitting. Just because you find a distinction annoying doesn’t mean you can pick an arbitrary point where we’re no longer allowed to be precise in our thinking. And if you think a mental reservation is no different from a lie, then how about explaining why? For me, the more I’ve actually thought about this solution, the more it holds up, and the less intimidated I get when I encounter anti-scholastic grandstanding.
What’s really convinced me is considering the alternatives. Many ridicule scholastic theology for its technical definitions, which come across as artificial, out of touch, and dishonest. These break off into two directions, both claiming the mantle of common sense and authenticity: one direction which makes the law against lying more strict, and the other which makes the law less strict. To both groups I say: be careful what you wish for.
I used to be more impressed by people in the first group. These people courageously face dilemmas head on. Unlike the rest of us, they refuse to compromise their values, or to try and escape on a technicality. They’d look at Raymund of Pennafort, roll their eyes and say “you can play all the word games you want, but the Nazi asked you a question, and your answer led him to believe the opposite of the truth. You did not tell the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth. Any normal person would say that’s lying, and if lying is wrong it’s wrong.”
In the past, this sort of response would make me feel like I lacked the courage of my convictions, and I’d wonder whether I was really playing word games or not. Today I’d ask, ‘well, what’s your definition of lying?’ If you’re able to pin these people down beyond vague appeals to the spirit of the law, I think you’ll often find an even more ridiculous legalism. Because if I can’t allow the Nazi to misunderstand me when I make a mental reservation - if lying means any form of deception whatsoever - if I must always tell the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth- then anything less than total transparency with the Nazi would be lying. So even if you were somehow able to deceive the officer without directly denying that you have Jews in your house, that would still be lying. You’d have a duty to disclose the truth to the officer, come what may.
I’m aware that some out there are happy to bite this bullet. They’ll say that all deception is wrong, whether by direct falsehood or misdirection. You’re not responsible for what the Nazi does with the truth; you can only control how you live out your life. I’ve personally decided that past a certain point, life is too short to seriously engage these sorts of viewpoints. As a recovering philosophy major, I’ve wasted enough of mine chasing down fine grained distinctions and wild rabbit holes. I now mostly agree with philosophers like W. Norris Clarke, and William Lane Craig, who say that there are certain things so clearly attested to in our human experience that questioning them is inherently unreasonable. Because any premise supporting an idea like “we are living in the Matrix” or “child abuse is ok” or “we have no free will” or “we can’t know anything” or “you should tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding” will be less plausible than our direct human experience to the contrary.13 At some point you need to take our most basic intuitions about reality seriously if you want to have a rational conversation. Though the mental reservation solution has the appearance of trickery on the surface, not only does the math check out, but it allows us to keep our foothold on an even more obvious and important truth.
Because the foothold is so firm, and the rock so precious, I see no reason to join the second group: those who give up on the idea that lying is absolutely wrong. At the end of the day, I think the first and second group are two sides of the same coin. They both think you can’t solve the Anne Frank scenario without lying because they think that if lying is wrong, then I have an unconditional obligation to tell the full truth. But as we saw, that doesn’t follow at all. Just as not all killing is murder, so not all deception is lying. And saying that lying is ok because deception is sometimes necessary is every bit as crazy (and arguably dangerous) as saying that murder is ok because killing is sometimes necessary. We are all looking down the barrel of the consequences I discussed in the first paragraph. As big of a price as we pay when we apply morality with an irrational and incoherent absolutism, we pay an even bigger price when we give up on the idea that morality is integral. There’s a fine but sacred line between the two, and it’s worth splitting a few hairs to find it.
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I’d love to get yours in the comments, especially if you disagree. For those of you who want to read more of what I write, I’m also a bi-weekly contributor to my friend Trevor’s blog, Lead Your Life. Check out my latest article here!
“I hate and detest falsehood but I love your law” (Psalm 119:163).
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).
“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).
“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. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray” (CCC 2485).
“Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, "Bring forth the men that have come to you, who entered your house; for they have come to search out all the land."But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them; and she said, "True, men came to me, but I did not know where they came from; and when the gate was to be closed, at dark, the men went out; where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them."But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof. So the men pursued after them on the way to the Jordan as far as the fords; and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut” (Joshua 2:3-7).
"A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (CCC 2482).
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” (James 2:24-25).
“By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies” (Hebrews 11:31).
“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph'rah and the other Pu'ah,"When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live." But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives, and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?" The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them."So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God he gave them families” (Exodus 1:16-21)
“So he went in to his father, and said, "My father"; and he said, "Here I am; who are you, my son?"Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your first-born. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, that you may bless me" (Genesis 27:18-19).
“But, as for that which is written, that God did good to the Hebrew midwives, and to Rahab the harlot of Jericho, this was not because they lied, but because they were merciful to God's people. That therefore which was rewarded in them was, not their deceit, but their benevolence; benignity of mind, not iniquity of lying.” ~ St Augustine, To Consentius, Against Lying
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way." (CCC 122)
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 (CCC 2488).
“I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other's silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say 'He is not at home,' or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testmanet. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods.” St Raymund Pennafort, quoted from Thomas Slater’s article on Mental Reservation
See The One and the Many by W. Norris Clarke page 78: “Both radical monism and radical pluralism are cop-outs; they leave out too much of what is undeniable in our human experience, what should not be left out, lest the philosophical explanation eliminate or distort the very data of experience it is supposed to explain. The diversity and multiplicity cannot be denied as illusory without contradicting an essential dimension of my experience, more certain than any theory that tries to explain it away: I experience myself-and so do most other adult human persons-as a free responsible center and initiator of action, in interaction with other such independent centers….”