Expert: Griff Ruby - 2/8/2011

Question
Hello,
Is it ok to lie in certain situations?  I've heard it said that sometimes people with nefarious intentions are not entitled to the truth.  Last Sunday I was kneeling in a pew in church and a large man who seemed deranged approached me and asked if i would pray for him and i said, "Yes."  then he asked (or yelled rather) if i could help him and i said, "No."  He asked why and a said that i just couldn't.  He kept yelling "why?"  Then he told me to give him money and i said i didn't have any, even though i did.  Is that a sin?  I figured that this person had mental problems and wouldn't understand any truthful logical reasons which i put forth (i.e. i did not give him money because that would only encourage him to continue to come into the church and harass and scare the parishioners); plus he was a large man and had a violent look about him and i feared for my safety.  I decided that he didn't deserve the truth so i said a lie to deceive him.  Was that a sin?
Thanks,
John

Answer
You did all right in that situation.  I have seen it illustrated in a catechism that a person answers the phone, but is told that if it is So-and-so calling to say that the person they want to talk to is "not home."  And this is considered acceptable under the terms of "mental reservation."  In the "phone" example, "not home" means "not home for you" and this maps quite directly to your situation:  "no money" means "no money for you."
Yes, a person's right to the truth can be (somewhat) curtailed by their not being worthy of the truth, for example if their intentions are nefarious or if they are prying about private matters that are none of their concern (e. g. strangers asking you to report the details of your sex life), or otherwise in all recognized justice not entitled to the sort of information that they seek.  In such a case you may say nothing, or you may give an "incomplete" statement that allows them to believe you deny having money (or being home) without your (or anyone else's acting in your behalf) actually saying anything wrong, but merely subject to some interpretation.
Here is some information from the Catholic Encyclopedia that may prove helpful:

According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

The doctrine was broached tentatively and with great diffidence by St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry. In his "Summa" (1235) St. Raymund quotes the saying of St. Augustine that a man must not slay his own soul by lying in order to preserve the life of another, and that it would be a most perilous doctrine to admit that we may do a less evil to prevent another doing a greater. And most doctors teach this, he says, though he allows that others teach that a lie should be told when a man's life is at stake. Then he adds:

"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 Testament. 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."

Such expressions as "He is not at home" were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase "He is not at home" was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, "He is not at home for you, or to see you." Hence equivocations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or reservations. It was commonly admitted that an equivocal expression need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circumstances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about sins made known to him in confession, he should answer "I do not know," and such words as those when used by a priest mean "I do not know apart from confession," or "I do not know as man," or "I have no knowledge of the matter which I can communicate."

All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies. Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason. If there is no good reason to the contrary, veracity requires all to speak frankly and openly in such a way as to be understood by those who are addressed. A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth.

Hope this helps, God bless!