Is Lying ALWAYS Wrong? Matt Fradd & Peter Kreeft Disagree 

This is an interesting discussion and I will make sure never to hide in Matt's house but will always be open to playing poker with him.

I love that you can have this difficult conversation so respectfully! ✝️

Jimmy Akin had a debate about lying. His theory of lying is similar to how we think about physical harm. Generally speaking it is wrong to cause someone physical harm. However, it is permissible for example as an act of self defence. Lying is disrupting someone’s right to know the truth. So one can argue in the Nazi scenario, the soldiers have forfeited their right to the truth because of the evil they intend. The title of the debate of Jimmy Akin is “Is lying morally permissible”.

Please pray for my best friend Taylor whom I've known for 17 years - since kindergarten. Today she is a witch who worships "Pluto", has traveled into doing "dark magic", and is engaged to marry another witch who started transgender hormones recently. As kids I had no foundation in Catholicism, and she was barely exposed to it during the same time. Recently, I am more solid in my faith and finally understand the basics of what it means to be a Catholic. A week or two ago I decided to put my foot down and tell her the witchcraft and the LGBT stuff is no good, and she completely cut me off from her and her family - people whom I considered as my own family. I ask you to help me pray to St. Monica for Taylor's reversion. She has told me that she would rather go to hell because she wants nothing to do with God - whom she sees as the bad guy. Despite those horrible mindsets, I am confident that God will do the impossible if I persistently advocate for the necessity of her reversion. And if many faithful people beg on her behalf, "Pluto" doesn't stand a chance.

I appreciate this conversation. It seemed uncomfortable at times, but those are often the most important to be had.

Traditionally, there have been 2 schools of theological thought on this. One stated that a lie occurred only when the listener had a right to the truth. But the Natural Law/Aquinas school claimed that a lie occurred no matter what. Thus Mafia hitman merely had to ask the undercover cop's true occupation. Ditto for Nazis and Jews. And when the Allies developed the Enigma machine to break the submarine codes and lure them into traps by broadcasting false tactical plans, they too were guilty of sin because, according to Aquinas, it was evil to mislead those who were trying to kill you. One ends up with endless 'reductio ad absurdum' examples when ignoring the fact that rights and duties are reciprocal principles. Thus the 1992 edition of the CCC, Paragraph 2483, stated that a listener's right to the truth was a qualified right. Previous Jesuit canon lawyers (back when Jesuits were "Jesuits") differentiated between 'formal' and 'material' lies. Formal lies involved knowingly enabling listeners to carry out their evil plans, while material lies occurred when the speaker was trying to prevent evil. The former was a sin but the latter was not. (NB: There is another classification using the same terminology where lies are classified according to whether the speaker is in subjective or objective error - but we are not concerned with that issue here.) Thus the fake baptismal certificates issued to the Jews to deceive the Nazis had at least the passive permission of the Vatican, according to pretty reliable Jewish Holocaust sources. Did the Vatican get it wrong??? Consequently, lying to Nazis about Jews was okay, according to the first edition (1992) of the CCC, because Nazis had no right to the truth. However, Germaine Grisez and his Natural Law School colleague-theologians lobbied then CDF head, Joseph Ratzinger, to amend paragraph 2483 of the 1992 edition, by dropping the qualification "to someone who had a right to the truth." Therefore the 2nd 1997 CCC edition stated that we must assist mass murdering psychopaths. Grisez's reasoning was that lies were an intrinsic evil which harmed the community we had with our fellow man. (Notably, Grisez was also instrumental in advising Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae.) Unfortunately, Grisez never got around to explaining how much community was possible with Nazi SS extermination troops looking for Jews or Mafia assassins seeking undercover cops. Consequently, many perplexed Catholics (like Peter Kreeft) cried foul and screamed their "reductio ad absurdums!" To silence them, Grisez et al came up with various forms of mental reservations, strict and broad - the success of which depended on the creativity and intelligence of those trying to obey the fundamental moral dictum of Veritatis Splendor: Do good, avoid evil. But surely, fundamental moral laws don't depend on how clever one is.

I can tell Matt put some real thought into this. Respect.

Peter Kreeft is an amazing guest

The commandment says “ Though shalt not bear false witness AGAINST they neighbor” it says nothing about bearing false witness FOR one’s neighbor.

This stuff is so much better than watching football!!!

I guess a better example is if someone asks you if your husband helps you around the house and you put your husband down by saying ‘he doesn’t at all’. In my opinion it’s wrong, because you shouldn’t put your spouse image down. People aren’t entitled to know all your personal business. In a way it’s lying, because you might be working through your marital issues and don’t need other people to know about it.

My knowledge is imperfect, my reason is imperfect. I am bound to sin, even with the best of intentions. Thank God for Grace.

This is a critical question because all moral decisions rise or fall with the answer. Some say you can lie because the ends justify the means (utilitariaism), or because the person asking doesn't deserve the truth (the Nazi soldier with bad intentions), or because one can hold a mental reservation (language is no longer linked to meaning). These all seem like cop outs since lying is intrinsically evil. Of course, jokes, fictional stories, and some games rely on lying (intentionally telling a falsehood) but these are established contexts wherein people don't expect the truth per se. I know a person can legitimately withhold information or creatively dodge an inappropriate question, but I cannot find a moral theory that says a lie is not a sin just when it serves a greater good. Should the definition of the object of the act of lying include a broader inclusion of circumstances, such as "the intentional telling of a falsehood that knowingly brings about harm"? Matt, help us out; buddy? This issue has always frustrated me and, as you rightly conjectured, is central to the discussion of all other intrinsically evil acts.

I have my RU-vid settings correctly yet I never get notified on long form videos, just clips. That's how I learn a long video exists.

Nazis have no right to demand the information and you have no obligation to provide it. A response which is deceptive is fine since they have no right to anything at all. The deception is irrelevant since a thief has no right to steal or take what does not belong to him and you have no obligation to not hide your valuables, indeed you should hide / deceive about your valuables.

We are talking about justice, prudence, & shrewd ...more than lying

This is a debate in the classical Islamic tradition as well. There are disputations where a shaykh will even offer something similar to the Nazi example: “if a madman comes and asks where to find a sword, am I obligated to tell him the truth?”

Kreeft is quite clearly right on this but I appreciate Matt's willingness to question Peter's view.

My attitude is: I lie to the Nazi at the door. Later I can, perhaps in consultation with another such as my confessor, figure out if I sinned by lying, and if so, confess it. Also, the conversation here between Matt & Peter did not canvass the criteria of any sin: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. If the case of the Nazi at the door, your full consent is compromised because you are torn between telling the truth and needing to stop the people hiding from being killed.

Didn’t God wink at the Egyptian midwives who protected the Hebrew boys? The scripture says God dealt well with them and gave them families.

There are several examples of lying being approved of or even praised in scripture. The Hebrew midwives in Ex 1, for example, or Rahab the harlot.

I'm with the dr.

If somone is just going to abuses the truth by causing harm to another person, i dont think they deserve the truth 🤔 Truth is sacred and it should be used for good.

I think we have become incredibly unimaginative in how we remain honest.

Dr. Peter Colosi from Salve Regina has some really interesting things to say about lying. I would love to see him on your show.

I appriciate Matt's question at around 5:15 about how we think the evil of contraception is thwarting the natural law end of the marital act (fruitfulness), then we should think it evil to thwart the natual law end of speech, to "share what is" as Matt puts it (or to "share one's mind" as others have put it). But if this proves that it is always evil to lie, then we could say that the end of using our hands and other other physical body parts on another person is to help their physical well being (corporal acts of mercy. This would prove that it is always wrong to physically harm another: It proves too much. At least one way I would consider resolving it: We are assuming to much when we say that the natural end of speech is to "share one's mind" (communicate what we know or at least believe to be true) - It might be more accurate to say that the end of speech is simply to communicate and ultimately relate to another person, which doesn't rule out situations where deceit in that communication *may* in fact be justified and necessary.

I guess the question would be that if God commands us both to not lie and also love one another, then what transpires when the factual, material truth appears to be more conducive to evil than goodness and love?

what I learned in RCIA is that telling the truth depends on whether the other party has the moral right to the truth. if they do, e.g. a person of legitimate authority who has your best interests at heart, then you mustn't lie. if they don't, then you can tell what is called an "untruth", because it isn't a lie if they aren't morally entitled to the truth.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. Paul tells us that of faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love. St Aquinas tells us that to love is to will the good of the other. So, wouldn't loving the Jewish family in the attic (That is, willing their good by keeping them safe) trump the "sin" of lying to the Nazis?

This is a matter of semantics. You can use mental reservation to keep information away from someone who doesn't deserve the information. Lying is never okay but mental reservation is at time good when you are saving an innocent life. Catholics are needed in the fields of private investigation or investigative journalism. They need to use mental reservation every day!

Rahab lied to protect the spies, yet she was commended and blessed as the great-great grandmother of King David

I finally decided that matters of opinion get a different rule than matters of fact. Because the truth is usually I don’t care, but when asked I may suddenly be deceived myself into believing I care because I care about the conversation and person I’m talking to. Like when a 250 pound friend asks if something makes them look fat, I’m likely to answer based on whether I think it’s a flattering or unflattering garment instead of saying “being fat is making you look fat” even if that’s the truth. But I often think this is the least of my worries and the devil would love for me to sit and dwell on a fine point on this topic while me and my other fat friends discuss it over gluttonous feasts. I’ve got a lot to work on you see. God bless everyone fighting their own sins in a society that encourages all of them. Fight the good fight.

A great discussion. Has made me think.

I’ve thought about this in terms of the Egyptian midwives who apparently lie to pharaoh to save the hebrew boys at the beginning of Exodus. God rewards them.

I am not catholic and I haven’t attended RCIA. I wish to convert once I can drive because my family wouldn’t approve. I have committed mortal sin and wish to confess, but due to the above circumstances I can’t. I have confessed to God. What do I do?

Great converse. Good topic. Love Matt's accent.

Peter Kreeft is !00% correct. Jesus said we should be as clever as serpents and innocent as doves.

Chukka chilling out like a villain with Peter and Paul and black water in love from Canada

I'm surprised by Kreeft's lack a familiarity of Aquinas on this issue. In the Summa, St. Thomas directly addresses the question of whether deceptive actions differ from deceptive speech. (Deceptive maneuvers in war is the example he uses.) Kreeft also seems to be unaware of when he starts going down the "end justifies the means" road.

If you say something under coercion is it a true choice?

Much respect, Matt.

This is such a difficult topic since I think many of us are very uncomfortable with the notion that we shouldn’t hide people in our homes to protect them. If we say lying is always evil, then it follows that many more people will die, including ourselves. Maybe that’s what God intends? Are we supposed to all be martyrs instead?

What I would add to the discussion is that it is intrinsically evil to lie when a person has a right to the truth. The Nazis at the door to not have a right to the truth, therefore, it is not sinful to deceive them. If a mother asks her son what he's been doing, she has a right to know the truth, and therefore, it would be sinful to tell a lie.

Really interesting conversation

By "lying" to Nazis about Jews hiding in the attic, what you're really doing is refusing to participate in evil. The devil does not deserve your cooperation.

We are missing the point. It is always sinful to lie. God gave us the gift of communication. The point of communication is to convey the Truth, if we deliberately frustrate that, convey the opposite or something other than what is in our mind, we are always harming not just others but ourselves. (Ie we are forming a habit of our intellect to distort reality and communicate something that is not in our mind). What we need to understand is the difference between a broad vs strict mental reservation. Deliberately lying and telling a falsehood is strict mental reservation. But in the case of the Nazis if they ask "are there Jews here," you answer "as far as you know there are none." That is not a lie and you are also now giving up the Jewish. That is a broad mental reservation, not a lie.

I worked at a skilled nursing facility in a lock down dementia unit for the better half of a decade. Unfortunately with dementia, it doesn't get better. The way we worded it was not that we were lying to a patient, but entering their truth for their own benefit and comfort. But I agree, lying is wrong to be deceitful. ❤️🙏

At last! I can now say that these two great minds are both wrong and I can offer a good solution. (I love them both and it gives me so much joy for this rare opportunity to correct them for once in my lifetime). They miss the reality of conditions for accountability and the degrees of accountability. A person may be accountable of a wrong thing, but the degree/gravity is less. But it doesn't mean that when the degree of accountability is less, then the person is not accountable at all. A person telling lies is guilty of a wrong thing because the definition of lying itself is to tell what is not right. But since the person lies to save a life, therefore, even if he is guilty of telling lies, his guilt is of a lesser degree. But the lesser degree of guilt doesn't mean that he is not guilty at all. 1. Sir Kreeft is right to say that we can lie to save life, but he is wrong to say that lying is right. Lying is always wrong. But you may tell a lie/wrong-thing in order to save life. By that, the guilt for lying is present but of a lesser degree. But the lesser degree of guilt doesn't mean that the person is not guilty. 2. Sir Fradd is right to say that lying is wrong, but he is wrong to say that he would not lie even if it means saving an innocent life. Sometimes we need to commit wrong thing as long as the degree is less. There falls the principle of double effect, proportionality, and special circumstances. Thank you Lord for this very rare opportunity to correct THE Peter Kreeft and THE Matt Fradd. AMDG!

I'm not sure about this myself.

Throwing a fake in basketball isnt a lie because a player who knows the game has the subconscious expectation that could happen and wouldn't be deceived if it did. They just don't know when it will happen.

Hey Matt how do you understand John 7.8-10? I always understood it as Jesus lying to his disciple. I don't think he sinned by that.

There are two instances in the bible where God blesses people that lie. Exodus 1 and Joshua 2 this is the stories of the Egyptian women lying to pharaoh about the male offspring and Rahab lying In Jericho about the spies. I don’t think it could be intrinsically evil if God blessed their actions. Otherwise he would be blessing a sin?

In the biblical story of King Solomon and the two mothers, did King Solomon lie to be able to know who the real mother was? If so, does that justify lying as a means to a good end?

“I think” should be saying “i feel”

An objectively evil act can remain objectively evil but at the same time NOT be accompanied by moral culpability. This means that whilst the act remains intrinsically evil/wrong in and of itself (and would be sinful if actually freely willed/desired), it would not be not sinful IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES of the person committing it (e.g. not freely willed/under duress). This does not change the nature of the act, which remains evil, but it only affects the moral responsibility attaching to the soul of the person committing it. This is a clear teaching found in the Catechism: "1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. 1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author." Something similar applies with regards to masturbation: "2352 [...] To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability." And contraception. From Casti Connubii: "59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin." The same would probably also apply to lying to the Nazis. Lying remains wrong in and of itself because it is a distortion of the truth. But the circumstances might lessen or even annul all moral responsibility of the person lying. One might say this is similar to the legal distinction between 'justification' and 'excuse' in civil law. Justification defenses are said to apply when the actor's conduct was not morally wrongful; excuse defenses lie when the actor did engage in wrongful conduct but is not morally blameworthy. And for the record, the Church seems to view self-defence not as an 'excusable' intrinsically wrong act but as a 'justified' act which is lawful in and of itself, indeed the Catechism teaches that - in some cases - it could constitute a "grave duty"! That is why I do not believe it should be compared to lying (the latter being intrinsically wrong, but potentially morally excusable because of the circumstances).

Poland was the only country in which there was an automatic death penalty for helping Jews (family included). So how would you answer Matt?

I’m on Peter’s side with this one. Lying itself is not a sin. It depends on the why Of the lie as he gets into like with the Nazi for example. There are clearly many many types of lies that would be sin. So, perhaps Matt needs to redefine what he means by lie. My daughter thinks Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real. Is this a sin? No, it’s like reading the LOTR so you can better understand the Bible. By her developing some further use of her imagination to me she’ll better be able to understand God because our understanding of God while based in reason isn’t solely based on the material world but also includes the supernatural. I think Santa Claus because he is based on a Saint in particular and when she’s old enough I’ll draw the line for her

'Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. ALL ELSE comes from the Devil' That's the answer and I'm surprised it didn't come up.

My soul agrees with Matt but my brain agrees with Peter. Peter makes so much sense, especially with the Nazi example. However, I just cannot shake the feeling that intentionally deceiving someone by lying is a sin. I very well could be wrong. However, isn’t Satan called “the father of lies”? And we believe in Jesus, the way, *truth*, and life? I’ve heard (I think from the Catechism?) that you are not obligated to disclose information to those who do not have a right to know it. However I’m not sure that means you can deceive them. Anywho, I love videos like these.

This is a hard one for me, but I don't have a right to decide what people do with the truth. It is simply my duty to share God's truth as it is

"To be inconsistent is to engage in the nature of lying." Plus, if the State is on your doorstep they already suspect you and won't believe anything you say afterwards when they do find the targets. If I don't answer the Nazi's or deflect then it's a lack of transparency rather than lying. Having said that I'm currently listening to Bahnsen on the 10 Commandments and he might be more flexible than Augustine which...I wasn't expecting.

At about 7:00, Matt mentions a decision of faith, that if someone holier and smarter than us believes a certain thing, we should adopt that belief until the belief is shown wrong. He uses this line of thought to hold his conviction that lying is always sinful. Peter Kreeft then mentions Aquinas and Kant, two great thinkers who believe that lying is always sinful. Can anyone mention a person of holiness and intellect comparable to Aquinas who says that lying is okay some times?

I would offer the example of The life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Cost of discipleship. An honest life in the Lord.

Very good. 👏

I think it all hinges on the definition of a lie: if you go with Augustine and say it’s “speaking against one’s mind,” and it’s per se malum, then it can’t be further ordered to a good end and simply can’t be done. If on the other hand you go with Newman’s definition, something like, “to tell an falsehood to someone who has a right to the truth,” then the genus of the moral object is “to tell an untruth,” (much like the case of choosing a lethal means in defensive homicide, cf. Sth., II-II q.64 a7,) and then the species-making difference is the addition: “to someone who has the right to know.” If someone does not have the right to know, then the falsehood you speak is an untruth, but not a lie, just as killing in defense isn’t murder. Yet this all depends on the definition: if lying is per se malum then one couldn’t ever lie to protect just as he couldn’t fornicate to protect. Besides being intrinsically evil, something like fornicating to protect or blaspheming, does not by it’s nature and per se effects tend to protect, so it’s further ordering is accidental. Whereas it is within the natural effects of telling falsehoods to deceive. So if telling a falsehood to deceive isn’t intrinsically evil, it can be further ordered to protecting the innocent/defense, and take its moral species from the end: defense. I really think this is the only part of Thomistic moral theology that makes people really scratch their heads and kinda goes against most peoples’ moral intuition. I think most people would intuitively say you can lie to the Nazis. But let’s all agree the example is kinda silly. If they are knocking on your door they’re coming in

What Dr. Kreeft neglects to acknowledge in his example of the Gestapo knocking at your door is that lying about the absence of Jews in your attic will harm your family---which you have not just a right, but a duty to protect. Either lying or telling the truth in this scenario will bring people into harm's way, so this is a poor example for one to use when their justification for mistruths is utilitarian.

Peter Kreeft is right in this case. Sorry Matt. I always told me wife that her hair looked good. What I actually thought didn't really matter.

What did Jesus say about lying? Is there scripture where He said if you lie a little, you lie a lot?

The intent is to preserve life, not to deceive.

8:13 To be fair to Jesuits. They were not founded to combat Protestantism. They are more like Franciscans, who were founded to search a holy life and to bring others (often Catholics not the least heterodox) to a holy life too. But yes, Albigensians are fairly scarce ... or were till Nazis and neo-Templars and similar revived them.

According to the 2nd version of the CCC, Kreeft is right. Hiding Jews is a sin because CCC 2483 states that "to lie is to speak OR ACT in order to lead someone into error." Apparently Aquinas would have agreed because he states that armies are not allowed to use decoys in battles because it deceives the enemy. I guess the idea is that opposing armies are to face off against each other and whoever chops off more heads and arms is the winner. And ditto for Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed in Genesis 22:7. Being confused, Isaac asks his father where the lamb is for the holocaust offering, whereupon Abraham tells him that God will provide the lamb. That fell into the category of a broad mental reservation. Now Abraham, at that point, believed that he had been ordered to sacrifice his son, and was willing to do so as the ultimate test of faith. Apart from the super-rich typology, the fact is that Abraham mislead his son into what be believed at the time was not the truth. However, according to Catholic theology, broad mental reservations can be justified. In contrast, CCC 2483 (first edition) states that "a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and his word to the Lord." So how does saving the life of Jews from mass murdering psychopaths do that? And if so, how come the Vatican never objected to the fake baptismal certificates given to the Jews in WW2? For if denying the faith is a grave mortal sin for a Catholic, surely falsely attesting to it must at least involve some evil for a non-believer. .

I agree, that debate between Fr. Pine and Dr. Smith was awesome! Here's the link to it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QQmmLqSuavA.html

One of the ways out of the dilemma is to ask a very simple question: "does the person I'm speaking to have a right to know the information I am obfuscating?". The Nazis clearly don't have a right to the information. If someone does have a right to know than concealing it is wrong.

Matt is killing me here! (Pun intended.) He says lying is inherently wrong and killing is not? C'mon!

I think the Kantian position may be a bit more nuanced than Dr. Kreeft admits to here. Kant’s original example is of a possible axe-murderer, rather than the Nazi under the conditions when they held power. This is important, since your options with how to deal with the axe-murderer in normal conditions of peace and justice are rather broad (you can offer resistance, or call the police, etc.). The free exercise of your faculties towards their natural end can thus be pursued, which would not relieve you of the responsibility to tell the truth (even to the axe-murderer). With the Nazis, or any circumstance of general reversion to the state of nature (with indiscriminate violence and lack of security), any obligation to cooperate with the forces of order are moit (since they’re illegitimate). This is not entirely sufficient to answer the question of whether it is immoral to lie in such a case, but I think it’s salient for any discussion to get at why we think we ought to resist evil-doers in this manner (even if it is on one description strictly immoral). I don’t think it would count as murder to kill an agent of such a state if it is in self-defense (broadly speaking), so telling a deliberate untruth with the goal of causing a false belief may in this case fail to count as an instance of lying, guven the particular circumstances. I amnot entirely sure though (but then this still puzzles Kant scholars working on this issue as well)

I disagree with Peter on this issue. His idea that hiding is a form of lying really threw me off. Matt is on the right track here. There are other options to lying. Hiding the truth and telling lies are very different.

This question relies on the precision of what it means to “bear false witness”. I think the problem is that people on Dr Kreeft’s side broaden it to mean any type of deception is bearing false witness. I would say bearing false witness is a very particular action that can only be performed through linguistic communication. Therefore making false movements or hiding objects or remaining silent are not bearing false witness thus not immoral. Whereas speaking falsehoods or communicating them through writing, or using sign language even to accomplish a perceived good is bearing false witness which is always a moral wrong. This would be like saying the people who forged documents to support Catholic claims were actually doing a good thing. Just because the end goal of defending Catholic truth was correct does not mean forging those documents in writing (bearing false witness) was morally acceptable. And we see not only the offense it causes to God, but with time we see that those forgeries have caused damage in the world because now the Prots and Orthos use these to attack the Church and keep people separated from Catholic communion.

Curious on Matt's thoughts on Rahab who lied and is praised for it

I agree with Matt. I think lying is always wrong. You one should never do evil so that hood may result from it (romans 3:8 I think ). I think you can withhold truth from someone who does not deserve to know it like saying in the nazi example “there is not one jew here” when in fact there are actually three. In that instance you just aren’t saying the whole truth because it is not the nazis right to know. But to say no there aren’t any Jews hiding here would be to wilfully deceive even if you are doing it for a good purpose it can never be good to do evil. In order to make something moral (an act) you have to with it by three things: the object (act itself) intention and circumstance. If one of those three things are wrong then the act idle immoral. The act itself hold the most weight of the tree. If you weigh lying by that standard then it has to be bad. If you are able to use something bad for good intention imagine what doors that can open into bigger more immoral things. You can always persuade yourself that something can be moral for a ‘good intention’ if you let little things be good.

I think mental reservations are the way out of the Nazi/Jew scenario for those who don't want to lie. I think a discussion to flesh that out would be helpful.

Did anyone catch the line, “and therefore shorten their purgatory” referencing people who actively chose to murder people?

I think I'd you decide to never bear false witness, you make different decisions in life and place yourself in different circumstances than you would if you complacently allow yourself to lie. And it's exactly the same with contraception. And I agree that the end of speech or your entire being is to give light to truth and you thwart that through intentional deception. You do however have the scriptures saying a good man covers a matter. And is hiding or covering a matter from others sight a form of deception?... I'm not so sure...

Not everyone deserves the truth at every moment. I’m with Peter. It’s not a free pass to lie but protecting others in dire situations is more important than what comes out of your mouth.

Some interpret the commandment to "not bear false witness" as just to not lie in a courtroom setting or similar.

The key to whether it is an intrinsic evil is: love. Love is the essential principle of morality (especially Christian morality). Since God is love and we are commanded to seek God and His will in all things, then the goal of morality is seeking love (i.e., seeking the good of others). This is why lying to the Nazis to save the hidden Jews is morality good: it is done out of love. Hence, Kreeft's argument for the condition on lying: lying is evil if it is deception to cause ill or harm; lying can be good if it is to protect another from illicit harm.

I would lie ALL DAY to evil men and women looking to do evil to my family, friends, or even strangers. No problem. It's context dependent.

The Church teaches that the right to know the Truth is not unconditional On this front one can argue that the Nazis don't have the right to know the truth We also see this in scripture where God sends decieving spirts to those who want to be decieved or those who deserve to be decieved

[Some thoughts from my head, if it contradicts catholic teaching I withdraw everything] It seems as though sometimes the end of some act should be frustrated if the act itself is not proper in the context. Analogy: The end of sex is procreation, but in fornication, one engages in sex that is illicit and should not be occurring, so a fortiori, the union of the lovers and procreation should not be occurring. So contraception in an act of fornication shouldn't be an *additional* evil over and above the illicit sex. Likewise, assuming the end of speech is communicating truth (seemingly dubious, but hey, let's assume), nevertheless the speech should not be occurring to the nazis. So the end of speech is rightfully frustrated via the lie.

Whether or not lying is always a sin depends on which edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church you have. The 1992/1994 version or the 1997 version of Paragraph 2483. The earlier edition stated that "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 THAT HAS A RIGHT TO THE TRUTH." The later versions dropped the qualification of a "right to the truth" Now a drug lord, Nazi SS, or Muslim terrorist looking to kill your mother has the same right to the truth as your mother. Go figure. I guess the people that gave the Jews those false Catholic baptismal certificates in WWII didn't realize the sins they were committing.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Exodus 20:16 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3‭-‬4 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. John 10:27

Even in the N*zi example, you could still say “there’s no one in here” and still be telling the truth, let me explain, let’s say a family lives in a house that has multiple rooms, two rooms are relevant to this hypothetical, the living room and the kitchen, if a child in the living room asks “is there any food in here” his or her parent could respond “no there is no food in here” even if there was food in the kitchen, the parent would not be lying as there is no food in the living room, the word “here” is vague and could refer to any part of the house, so if a N*zi were to ask if you were hiding someone, one could make a vague gesture to a part of their house where no one was hidden and honestly say “there is no one hidden here” since “here” could refer to a specific room being pointed to or the house in general, if the person utilizes a mental reservation referring to the former, they are still technically telling the truth, I could be wrong but these are just my thoughts

It isn’t a lie if it protects someone

If all lying is a sin then writing a fiction novel is sinful

It's not "lying" in the example with the nazis. You can know that because I'm a coward. When I sin I act cowardly and towards my self interest. If I were to reveal the location of the jews I'll act towards my own interest and against everybody else interest. If I were to "lie" I would act against my own interest of preserving my life, but in favor of the life of the jews and the soul of the nazis

Lying is always wrong

Ghandi and Kant versus St. Thomas and St. Augustine on a given issue is not a debate which can be evaluated by number of proponents on each side. I haven’t watched this whole interview, but it is sad to see Dr. Kreeft, with whom I am personally but casually aquatinted, appear to intimate such a thing here

Why are they not going to scripture namely, the example of Rahab? It’s not simply a “descriptive” story, we have multiple passages talking about Rahab. Hebrew 11 lists her in the ‘heroes of the faith’ so there’s an interbiblical commentary of the story in the sense that one of the only things In Rahab’s life does not disqualify her from being mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then the question can become, well Abraham did some really sketchy stuff as well which did not disqualify him from Hebrews 11 which gives us examples of the faith. The author, at least the Holy Spirit, was very intentional with what was included in the story, so why was Rahab’s blatant lie included? What was the author trying to teach? Therefore, I’m confused as to why they did not go there in this discussion :)

So can we deceive evil?

Well, Lying is always wrong, period. The problem for many, is a faulty definition of what lying is. The proper definition of a lie is: "An attempt to decieve someone, of something they have a right to know." By this definition, Telling a Nazi, "There are no Jews here." Is not a lie. By this definition, a statement by a teenager to his/her parents, when asked, "Did you come home last night 32 minutes after midnight?" answers "no," while technically may be true (If in fact it was actually 12:55am) is still a lie, on the part of the child, to decieve the parents of something they have a right to know - (which is "Did you honor the 12 midnight curfew properly, as agreed upon earlier")

Well if you think about those who were hiding Jews during the holocaust I think that would’ve been the only time you could have said something that was a lie because you were protecting somebody from being killed. Think about Irena Sendler. She had children and as many things as she could think of to smuggle them out to a safer place.