Is Lying Always Wrong? Fr Gregory Pine Vs. Dr. Janet Smith Debate 

What an amazing debate, huh?

I wrote my final Ethics essay on lying after watching this discussion! Fantastic!

maybe the three thumbs down were from people who thought it was OK to lie about how they felt about the video :)

I was needing this conversation since my childhood. This question about lies is a fundamental one to me.

Fr. Gregory is brilliant

The 1992 Catechism definition makes the most sense. By lying to the Nazi's, you are doing them an act of charity and you do not break social cohesiveness (see Justice), but actual work to establish it. So, I think it is okay to tell a falsehood in those situations.

I feel like I just had a great mental and spiritual workout! Thank you for this. So valuable and thought provoking.

Fr Pine: Classical Speech vs. Quantum Speech and its effect on humor. Well played.

Absolutely Brilliant debate! Great content Matt ....I actually started out on Dr Smith's position, but over the debate I found myself drifiting over to Fr Gregory's side especially his response at 45:00, Really eloquent and it very much resonated with me.

Not only is Fr. Pine brilliant, but humble and BEAUTIFUL!!! I trust him completely; he has articulated what I have believed for 30 years but could never explain in argument. His closing argument is out of this world.

After listening to Fr Pine's opening position, I almost thought the matter was settled... that there would be no way Dr Smith could effectively counter it. Now, after hearing her well thought out reasoning which is intellectually satisfying, I am grateful for her courage in addressing this issue. She makes perfect sense and has convinced me that her position is correct.

Killing it with the intro song!! Hope everyone is having a blessed Lent🙏🏾

How in the world did I miss this? I've been waiting for this all week lol. Can't wait to watch!

Best debate I have ever heard. Period.

Amazingly awesome! Thnx again Matt for bringing up what’s on our minds and in our hearts!

Absolutely amazing debate! Loved it! Thank you all for making it happen!

Such an interesting debate that I've been looking forward to for days!

Wonderful! More of those on just about any subject, and I'd be hooked. Thoroughness, clarity, and non-argumentative debate leads to unintended conversion! Thanks!

There's a incredible book called "The Hunted Priest" which is the autobiography of Fr. John Gerrard which deals in some part on the topic of this debate. Fr. John Gerrard lived in England during the Elizabethan era and saw many people put to death because of the Catholic faith. Fr. John would bring the sacraments to his parishioners in secret and would stay in "priest holes" in his parishioners houses when the English soldiers were searching for priests. Fr. John exhorted the people hiding him not to lie to the English soldiers when they came into the house but instead he told his parishioners to answer the question in an indirect way, so that they did not have to lie and therefore to avoid committing a sin. For example, Fr. John recounts a story of soldiers coming into the house in which he was hiding and heard the soldiers ask "Are you hiding a priest?" to which his parishioners responded "we know what would happen to us if we were to be found hiding a priest here". In this situation, they did not lie nor did they sin and in fact they told the truth. The parishioners knew very well that would be killed if they were found to be hiding a priest. They answered the question truthfully (indirectly) but most importantly they answered the question without having to lie or sin in doing so.

This was excellent. They only spoke over my head a few times, so I learned a lot. Glad I don't have to declare a winner, because both provided great arguments. One thing I did wish they would have addressed more is the lie of omission.

Dr. Smith is spot on. Lying and deception are essentially different (lying being saying an untruth to someone in word or deed to someone who has a right to know and deception being saying an untruth to someone who doesn't need to know) in the same way that Murder and killing are essentially different. Thomas is also very nuanced about the nature of stealing--it isn't merely taking what belongs to another--there is the hierarchy of goods, that a person's life is a higher good than the right of another to have an excess of food (Universal Destination of Goods). There is a more nuanced, yet essentially distinct answer to this. Parents often insruct their children to tell a stranger at the door that Mom is busy" when in fact Mom is at the grocery store. Moral imperitives are rooted in the Natural law--and decieving Nazi's at the door is avoiding evil. This is what makes deception a possible use of language under justice (as I am saying what the Nazis and hidden Jews both deserve). The human person's intellect is designed for truth, but not all people deserve to know particular truths--such as my children don't deserve to know about discussions/activities between spouses, strangers don't deserve to know the whereabouts of my children, my neighbor to have my bank account number. This all boils down to the nature of "Is telling a falsehood intrinsically wrong?" or "Are all falsehoods lies?" Father Pine and Dr. Smith don't agree on the definition of lie.

Simply beautiful. Poetry in motion to watch two brilliant theologians have a rigorous debate. I had been looking forward to this since Matt announced it would happen, and it certainly did not disappoint. I don’t know on whose side I fall, lots to continue to consider. Thanks, PWA!

Every thing Fr. Pine touches turns to gold

A fascinating deep dive into this topic. I greatly enjoyed it!

Just have to say this is an incredible debate and discussion, one of my favorite episodes. Thank you to Dr. Smith and Fr. Pine for the excellent points made and Matt Fradd for bringing us such a great debate!

absolutely AMAZING, these two are incredibly brilliant and have a deeeep knowledge.

This debate was BRILLIANT and so very much needed - thanks

Hey Matt! Great podcast as usual. Just remember to include the topic of debate in intro lol... it took me some time to figure out what exactly was being argued for or against. Thanks for all the great content!

Teach it like Father Pine, do it like Dr. Smith. That’s my takeaway.

Thank you, this was amazing. More Dr. Smith!

I listened to this through the podcast, it was absolutely wonderful. I learned a lot.

Fantastic job by both! Such an interesting topic!

Matt, tremendous conversation and insightful, skillful, intelligent guests. This is one of the reasons I so much enjoy your channel. Thank you.

I just listened to this and it was great!!! The thought that kept coming to my mind was from a class on the Virtues by St. Thomas where I first heard of the virtue of Epikeia.

Dang, this was really good and thought provoking. Awesome topic!

phenomenal. epic. and all that sort of stuff. many accolades to all three. thanks matt for arranging this!

This play-in music is fire! Matt came on, and I just rewound it to the beginning!

Excellent and exciting discussion. Truly enjoyed it.

This is probably my favorite debate I've seen on Pints so far! At the end, I found myself more convinced by Dr. Smiths arguments, but it was close. Fr Pine was brilliant as always!

This is the best discussion I have ever witnessed.

This was very good! Both of them!!

Oh my Gosh!!! This is such an excellent debate and at amazingly right time. I was having discussions with Catholic friends and that was going nowhere. This debate is such a blessing. I can't say who won but my conscience is definitely well informed. Thanks @MattFradd God Bless

This is incredibly thought provoking. I would lean towards lying being always wrong, BUT I certainly don’t think I could necessarily defend my stance at this point because Dr Smith made some great points I’ve never considered. Thank you for hosting this, it’s awesome!

So good! Many thanks!❤️

Does anyone here think that Jesus would speak falsehood for any reason whatsoever? Or the Blessed Mother? Somehow I think Jesus and Mary would never speak falsehood. I realize this is not a highly intellectual statement, but in a catholic conversation it is worth asking.

So much nuance here, but after listening carefully and being sympathetic to both, I think Fr. Pine is actually thinking more deeply and with more depth of nuance.

That contraception talk changed MY life 800 years ago too! I was only a teenager but it is SO powerful! And yup, we had the cassette tape! Listened to it in my mom's old van. ;)

Loved it. God Bless all of you

This was such a great debate.

By Dr. Smith’s definition of lying, it would seem that she thinks that lying is always wrong (if lying is telling a falsehood to someone who has a right to the truth).

1:05:07 uniqueness of the calling of each member of the body- fascinating. Reminds me how Ignatius has a totally different pattern of discernment for one who is in/fighting mortal sin and one established in a life of grace

Professor Smith, I would have adored being one of your students. You explain things both well and clearly-with real common sense!

This was so epic. I too was nodding agreeably with whoever spoke last. This will have me scratching my head for a while!

I am a Protestant viewer who is sympathetic to Natural Law, and other elements of Catholicism, and I found myself caught in the middle of the two interlocutors, agreeing with both Gregory Pine and Dr. Smith. Both made compelling arguments.

Fantastic debate!

What a fantastic debate! I have to agree with Fr Pine that no one including the evil one should be derived from truth or prevented from knowing the truth. Our unwavering commitment to speak the truth must direct our deeds and when this is practised well, prudence will besiege our intellectual capabilities and it becomes much harder for evil to permeate our world. Deception is evil and using evil to fight evil or thinking that we can will evil is nonsensical from a logical deductive perspective. We should be polyanish in a certain way to live by the grace of God and by His providence set things right. We cannot decide what is right and wrong by our own intuition but by the precepts of God.

Around 1:16:00 is where I hear the argument that convinced me that lying is always a sin... I began to consider that our already complex morality is being made more complicated when we lie, even for good reasons, when telling the truth might allow us to cooperate with God’s plan in the process of healing the broken-ness that entered the world at the fall.

I also disagree with Dr. Smith that a joke is the same thing as a jocose lie. I disagree that the intent of a joke is to deceive. The intent of a joke is to surprise or shock, and often a person is led through deception, but ultimately a joke-teller doesn't want their conversation partner walking away from the conversation believing whatever falsehood they used to make the joke. I mean, when we make a joke and it's misunderstood, our immediate reaction is to clear up the misunderstanding. When we lie, unless we repent, we generally want the person who we've lied to to believe the lie indefinitely.

Never lie to dementia patients. Your answer should redirect them to something positive, that they loved, while still staying on topic. Ex: “When is Harry coming home?”(the husband who is deceased). Caregiver: “You loved it when he came home, didn’t you? What was his favorite dinner you’d cook for him?” Through your redirecting questions explore all kinds of loved filled memories.

Wow, wow, wow. Incredible debate between two people who obviously want the truth and deeply respect one another.

Great video. I think it took a sharp turn in Pine's favor when Janet resorted to blatant consequentialism and then Santa Claus came up. I was deeply unimpressed with the way she just assumed that victims of well-intentioned lies would later thank those who had lied to them, and that anyone who found lies regarding Santa Claus objectionable must be psychologically imbalanced. I am glad Matt pushed back at that point, because these arguments from Janet were deeply impoverished. I was also unimpressed with her closing statement, which contained a number of strawmen. The content before Santa Claus was of much higher quality. It seems to me that Janet's claim about "the right to know the truth" broke down fairly quickly along the slippery slope lines indicated. Sure, you could claim that Nazi's don't deserve, but soon enough she was talking about dementia patients and children. At that point it was no longer about desert, but the liar was lying simply because he believed he had a good reason to do so. Neither dementia patients nor children are undeserving of truth. So I don't think her position even measures up to the 1992 catechism. Justifying lying seems to be little more than a matter of convenience. Finally, I think Augustine and Aquinas' point about "double-heartedness" transcends a mere slippery slope argument. The idea is that lies are intrinsically harmful to the liar and cleave his soul in two. The one who lies has to worry not only about forming a bad habit, but has also to worry about the significant harm that he has already inflicted on himself.

I also emphatically fist pumped when Fr. Pine reminded us (somewhat too subtly, I would say) that God and His Providence are still out there, and it feels like most of this debate forgets this fact. If we admit Fr. Pine’s argument about the absoluteness of truth and genuinely want to please God by never lying, do we have enough faith in Him to speak the truth (or Truth) if Nazis come around?

Fantastic discussion.

First off, best discussion you've hosted yet, Mr. Fradd. Love Dr. Smith. She really held her own here and probably then some. Your guests are the best. I know have more podcasts than I know what to do with. Keep kermit-ing it up. The host with the funny accent outlives them all. Secondly, what's up with Fr. Pine's face at 1:53:50. It's something like, I can't believe I'm not working on my dissertation to debate Santa Claus.

This was awesome!

Wow, this really clarified why lying is wrong. I wasn't sure to begin with and this was a long time coming.

If we all resolved to radically tell the truth, the human race would propel toward heaven. If we all resolved to lie only under good circumstances, I'm convinced that the human race would largely remain the same. Two things convinced me of this: 1) Fr. Pine's point of certain seemingly good lies being a response to (and therefore playing into) immoral structures like war, and 2) my own brokenness and how quickly I would exploit the latter resolution to ever-broaden my definition of lies that I consider good.

1:45:20 reminds me all of a sudden of one of my favorite movies, Life is Beautiful

As a major Father Pine fan, it almost pains me to say that I think the wise doctor convinced me in her closing argument. It does seem more ethical to decide what is lying based off of who deserves to know rather than the effects.

Regarding Santa Clause...I definitely believed whole-heartedly for too long. In Grade 7 I stood in front of my class and passionately defended my position against the rest of my class, explaining that I had personally seen him flying with his reindeer (I can still vividly remember seeing it?!). The fact that nobody else believed, however, seemed to sway my absolute belief at least enough to cause me to come up with a plan. One of the presents I received from Santa was a pair of shorts. Some time after Christmas I wore the shorts and casually asked my mom where she bought them. AND she TOLD ME! I gasped. She gasped. My world crumbled but we laughed and laughed. I still have fond memories of Santa regardless of my embarrassment but I typically embrace embarrassment easily so long as it's humourous. As a parent, I think I've struck a decent balance. I think I tend toward Father Pine and Matt's perspective so I try very hard never to lie. I typically turn the question back to my children and ask what they believe and would never tell them flat out, "yes Santa, as the world sees him now, is completely real." That being said, I love what C.S. Lewis had to say on the topic very very much...well sort of on the topic...when responding to a little girl about her concern over loving Aslan more than Jesus. In any case, 2 of my kids have figured it out, but they play along well under threat of "if you don't believe in Santa you don't get a gift from Santa *wink wink* *nudge nudge*" - haha!

This was great! Thanks for this. Side note, I think something might be off with the lighting or the dark color of the walls or something.... it looks like you have a floating head.

One thing is certain: it would be very nice for the Church to settle this question definitively.

Two fantastic minds on a very difficult topic

The best show I’ve listened to on here. I just had this example. I was confused because I lied about having direct knowledge on a church scandal issue. But the person asking I felt wouldn’t do good with that info. But I was torn if I discerned correctly because it felt like a lie. I took it to confession. The priest told me it wasn’t a lie. He said the person asking didn’t have the right to have that privileged information therefore it was not a sin. He said if the Church came to me during an investigation and asked me that then no matter how I felt I am obliged to answer that correctly because they have that right to know and should act on it appropriately. He explained it the exact way Janet did. Very timely show for me since I just had this situation.

I was totally expecting Father Pine to win. But, now that I watched the whole thing, I'm glad Janet won. Totally shifted my perspective

Blessed Migel Pro masqueraded as a street sweeper. Was that a moral wrong? Why would it only be morally wrong when verbalized, but not just acted out??

I'm really torn, but I'm leaning towards lying always being wrong. One thing I'd ask is whether or not bodily death of a human being is contrary to eternal law. I think the only way you can say that lying is always wrong, but killing is not always wrong is by saying that the expression of falsehood contrary to eternal law, but the bodily death of a human being is not contrary to eternal law. I think that makes sense though.

Keep videos like this coming! Thank you señor Fradd. Dr. Janet Smith, I have never heard of you but I think I would love to hear from you and the experience you have had over your life time. I intellectually side with Father Pine but Dr. Janet Smith made an excellent point in her closing remarks and I would say no, Jews are not in my home. Two days later and still thinking about this video.

So, if you were asked if you knew where the priest was hiding and you responded non- verbally with a puzzled look and shrug of the shoulders, would that not also be a deception of communication???

Interesting to say the least. Fr. Pine and Professoe Janet Smith both did an amazing presentation. I'm still on the fence on the topic which I have wondered about for a long time. I've seen sincere theology students abuse the notion that YOU don't deserve the truth and tell silly lies and I've see the reality of telling the truth to the destruction of other lives. I've seen that sometimes telling the truth will lead others into falsify due to the understandable distrust in the world, and due to the inability of others to (either or both) trust or discern an honest person. I would love to see more debate on the topic but diving deeper perhaps including the spiritual reality of reality. Blessings!

What I’m starting to see now (and I don’t know if it’s because of this debate) is that people are saying that Jesus **lied** in John 7:8-10… It seems to me like people are going as far as saying that Jesus lied (heresy) to justify lying.

Good points!

12:14 38:09 54:03 01:39:06 Definitions 24:52 55:14 01:50:02 02:05:20 02:12:06 ‘someone who has the right to know the truth’ 25:21 01:27:41 01:44:57 'they will thank me for [lying]' 27:43 01:13:41 01:34:08 01:36:15 02:09:09 Murder 28:23 01:14:53 Spies + undercover police 28:48 51:55 55:44 Military 29:12 ‘I'm not busy’ 30:06 Dementia 31:23 39:19 Venial sins 32:34 Mental reservations 33:07 01:59:26 'even if you speak the truth with the intention to deceive, that is immoral' 42:00 02:06:59 02:09:47 ‘[lying to save Jews] goes against all of our moral intuitions’ 44:58 'We shouldn't play the game' 49:14 57:54 01:03:25 Apostasy 52:36 58:39 01:39:29 Jokes 01:26:46 01:39:14 Acting (genre) 01:44:35 Children + Santa 01:54:03 02:01:03 John 7 Sorry this is incomplete -- just making some notes for friends and thought others could benefit.

This was fantastic. After listening, I'd love to hear more thoughts on whether it's ok to decide I prefer the definition of lying in the '92 version of the CCC. To develop that, what should a faithful Catholic's stance be in regards to the CCC? I was initially taught to love it (and I do). Then I starting hearing fellow traditionally-minded people speak ill of it. Finally, I've heard that some misguided individuals (I'm sure that's putting it too charitably) would like to see words like "disordered" redacted from some pretty important places. Add the option of preferring a previously unabridged definition of lying and, well, I wonder what sort of ground I'm building on here. The winds blew and the floods came! Also, I'd just like to say that seeing Fr. Pine piece together, e.g., a moral framework of humor on the spot is truly as enjoyable as watching a fantastically trained athlete. I'm in awe of the speed and precision with which he builds up a cohesive stance from well-ingrained research and fundamental principles. I put all this work into a comment only to just notice it's all 2 years old! Oh well, if you read this God bless :)

That was awesome. I have to side with Fr. Pine at the end, though Dr. Smith really forced me to think this through. Her position smells a little utilitarian.

Haven't watched this yet. My first two reactions from the title alone. Situation #1 "Ver are de Jews?!" Absolutely, lie without hesitation. Situation #2 *Gun to head* "Do you believe in Christ?" "Yes." *BANG* "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" -Mathew 10:33 I look forward to watching this when I get the time!

This was an excellent debate. Looking back, I think Dr. Smith's strongest argument was proposing the "pre- and postlapsarian" framework and asking why it is acceptable to kill an aggressor to save the life of an innocent but not lie to an aggressor to save the life of an innocent. And she made a strong case at the end about how Catholic teaching about the universal destination of goods should give a Catholic pause over whether lying might sometimes not be 'lying' in the same way that stealing is sometimes not 'stealing'. It seemed an important point she made about examining ourselves to avoid clinging to a fixed theory instead of being flexible to God. At the same time, when Matt later asked how her 'postlapsarian' approach paired with her contraception stance, I wasn't persuaded that her positions are consistent, and I do think consistency really matters. Another part of Dr. Smith's argument that I particularly hope she might tweak in future is when she talks about imagining God telling a person how "proud" He is of them for lying; to be honest, I found the way this was framed a little off-putting, especially since it seemed to imply that people who persevere in avoiding lies wouldn't receive the same accolade from God (as if they have poorer judgment or lesser love than she does). And none of us can speak for God -- I tend to get wary when people seem to too-casually think that they know God will judge them approvingly. straw man Beyond that, it seemed to me that she sometimes proposed things as 'intended to deceive' that just didn't seem, to me, to fit that category. For example, I just don't think it's true that anyone watching Hamlet on-stage is actually being intentionally deceived into thinking they're peering into some portal that's revealing real events: everyone is aware that what they are watching is not to be mistaken for anything-other-than-entertainment. Similarly, that split second as a joke lands, just before the incongruity resolves in the listener's mind, that she categorized as 'deception' -- that just doesn't seem to me to fit the genre of deception either. Since the point of telling a joke is that the other person 'get' the joke, the combination of incongruity and resolution is delivered as one coherent 'thing': as one packaged speech-performance the intention of which seems singular (to entertain, with (hopefully!) no interceding explanation necessary to resolve listener confusion, as good jokes shouldn't leave listeners confused and shouldn't need explanation). I was actually startled by just how many types of lies Dr. Smith turned out to think were not only licit but should be expected from people for the purpose of comforting others. I honestly think the examples started to get to the point where there were lots of alternative ways to comfort the people in the examples, without lying, and it started to seem like (apologies to Dr. Smith who really did bring a lot to this conversation, I'd probably point others to this video as an excellent debate) an argument from a lack of imagination. It just hasn't been my own experience that I need to lie to comfort people. To my memory there have ALWAYS been alternative ways to effectively and compassionately comfort people without telling any lie at all. I honestly can't think of any counter-examples (although I think the case of a dementia patient is the best counter-example and requires the most finesse -- but in the case of conversations with cognitively-affected persons I can actually imagine an argument that speech acts intended to guide a cognitively-affected person (say, through a drug trip or situations of impacted memory) don't count as 'lies' if you're operationalizing constructs within the subjectively distorted reality that is the only reality the affected persons have access to (like talking someone off a window ledge by telling them to walk towards the giant purple teddy bear they think is behind you), because even if only subjectively, those subjective concepts do 'exist' for that person within the context of their state of being mentally affected -- and maybe there's some application of that to the case of dementia patients convinced they're young again, or that dead people are just out at the store). But leaving aside the tricky dementia case which might be a rabbit hole with many different types of answers, it does just seem to me overall that providing alternative comfort methods is just a matter of creativity and sensitivity, and being willing to spend the time and mental/emotional energy to help someone without taking the shortcut of lying. And I'd personally be uncomfortable if I knew the person I was socializing with thought it was moral to lie to me to comfort me; I want gentleness, sure -- but not lies, not even lies intended to make me feel good. Gentleness and truth; 'truth' doesn't mean the harshest truth delivered in the most exhaustive, context-inappropriate way. Fr. Pine was excellent as always. He's a treasure. His only argument that I didn't find fully persuasive was the argument about Jesus's speech act about going up to the feast of booths -- but as Fr. Pine noted, he himself didn't consider himself to have a full answer for that question, and what he said was very brief (although he later seemed to suggest that maybe someone else's intervening action changed Jesus's action in between his speech act and travel action? which if so, I'd just like to have heard fleshed out a bit more). Because it seems to be the strongest and simplest argument put forward in favour of lying in the whole video, if Jesus lied. And Dr. Smith picked up on that very well. Apart from that, Fr. Pine was clear, generous, cheerful. And every point he made (the integrity of speech acts as a matter of justice; the misleading framing that sometimes limits this debate from seeing that multiple possible actions are available; the salvific witness value of truth to even the souls of aggressors) was a refreshing affirmation of the strongest case against lying. At least, it reflected my own thinking on the matter from before listening to the debate, and so it was good to see it reflected on the screen and not only be saying it in my head and frustrated that it wasn't represented.

When I leave the lights on before leaving home, am I also being deceptive to would-be criminals who would otherwise ransack my home? In this case am I sinning?

Is it possible that the principle of double effect applies here? Seems like in the hard cases that keep being brought up the intention is protection, not deception. Since the intention is right, and the consequences are not intended, but foreseen, does the principle of double effect apply? Thanks for doing this Matt, I’ve been chewing on this for a long time. Great debate.

I was more convinced by Fr. Gregory Pine’s argument. Prof. Janet made a good argument but when fr. Pine said that we have to allow for God’s Providence. That our cooperation with sin or not is a testament or scandal for others.

Back to this almost a year later. I still think Fr. Pine won. Went from majoring in biology to philosophy, and now I'm writing a paper on this.

This is why Grace is so crucial. To have that wisdom to act accordingly to God’s will. Life so hard for us mortals. Avail yourself to the sacraments as much as possible. Excellent discussion. Janet Smith is intelligent and Father Pine is on his way to a holy priesthood. Praise God!!

Fr Pine is very based and he is right.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no

Super cute pic of Fr. Gregory Pine Vs. Dr. Janet Smith on Pints with Aquinas RU-vid video 💗

Great discussion! We need more of such discussions in this world. I wish I could in the end agree with Dr. Smith, but I think Fr. Pine had the better argument.

I agree with Father Pine. Pax Christi.

As someone who dealt with a father with dementia, I agree with Dr. Smith. I watched my father crumble when my mother told him that his mother was dead. (She's been dead since 1977). It would have been cruel to continually break his heart every time he asked about a dead family member.

Amazing debate. I agree with Dr. Smith.

I would have loved to hear what the circumstances were for the changes. 26:21