Lying: This Will Surprise You!

0:00Well, good morning, and thank you, everyone, for joining us here live at the National Shrine at the Divine Mercy. We have some people who made it in. It's been a tough winter so far, but we're making it through. We're grateful that you could be with us. Today, we have a very interesting topic. One that I've always say, I always say, I should have done long ago. And this is going to surprise you. And that is, is lying ever acceptable. Is it ever? There are many things. Do you know that joking is actually considered by Thomas Aquinas as lying. What about exaggeration? What if we're just exaggerating or hyperbole? What about white lies? Not to hurt somebody's feelings or to protect them. That's got to be allowed, right? This is all very interesting. And so we're going to talk about all of this, and again, the answer might really surprise you. So we're going to go through biblical and

1:04Catholic teaching online, because at one time or another, we've all been put in this position, where we either don't want to offend somebody or we make up excuses or outright try to deceive. And that's problematic. So anyway, but before we begin our prayer, it's with very sad news, extremely sad news, that Cameraman Giuseppe, his family, his mom was so very sick. Well, his sister shockingly died last night. She passed away. She had been sick with cancer, but then the cancer went into remission. And we were all so happy. And she was such a vibrant soul and still is. And she then got pneumonia and it was just shock. When I got Giuseppe's text this morning, I just was so much shocked. So I called him, he's hanging in there. He's just an

2:07almost incredible guy. He's hanging in there. But wow, his family is really carrying the cross right now. I assume and know that many of you are too. So let us begin with a prayer in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Heavenly Father, we ask you send the Holy Spirit down upon us to open our minds and hearts to know your will, to be able to learn from the teaching that you have through your church so that we can love and follow you better. We ask for special prayers upon Kathy. Giuseppe's sister, may she rest in peace. May you have mercy on her soul. Forgive her of any sins and bring her into your kingdom. We ask all this through Christ our Lord. Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Okay, so in a very important topic that affects every one of us, even if you've never lied,

3:09there's been times where you've had to think, there's been times where you've had to process in your mind and then sometimes what about where you think you're telling the truth and then stop not being the truth? Is that a lie? Or how about where you think you are lying but ends up being the truth? Is that a lie? We're going to talk about all of that. So you saw in the first slide the picture there. Did God tell Samuel to lie? That's in the Bible. And so what about the Jews? What about if you were to have a Nazi show up at your door and you're hiding Jews from not being killed and they come and looking for Jews, can you to save their life? Tell them that there is and can you lie to them? This is all a fascinating moral topic. I'm going to share with you my notes. I had four classes in moral theology and this was right off the bat, moral theology one. And so this is where I'm going back to get the notes to share with you. So this is definitely taking you back

4:11to seminary. So what is a lie? Well, we just think it's the untruth. Well, there's a couple of things. Let's go to our first slide for the Mark and show it. This is from the Catechism 2482. It defines a lie as to speak a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. So how do we wrap unwrap that? Now there are three elements that must be present for a lie. First of all, it has to be false. Secondly, you have to know that it is false. And third, you have to have the intent to deceive. Okay. If all three are present, it is a lie. This definition, though, is very precise. And it's different. Some people get a lot of scrupulous people and the confessional that they made an error and innocent error. And then they think they've committed this huge sin. This is different. Lying is different from error. This is saying something false unknowingly. Like I would say,

5:15well, it was so-and-so's birthday that day. And I'm wrong, but I thought it was right. That's not lying. That's error. Jokes. This is very interesting. Thomas Aquinas said, a joke to do a joke on someone. If it's not true in what you're telling them, this is a sinful lie. Now, other moral theologians have said something different. We're going to talk about that. But jokes that have no intent to deceive seriously. Most modern theologians today say, is not a lie, is not a sin. So we'll go into that. And then what about figurative speech? Today's Nancy's birthday, so I told her happy birthday, said, but I'm so sorry. I got a million things to do today. Is that a lie? Well, so we're going to get into that. So, okay. So now, why the church teaches lying is always wrong. Always. Okay, the Catech is now going to 2485,

6:19by its very nature, lying is to be condemned. Now, father, at their circumstance is to save a life that I can tell a white lie. Hmm, we'll get there. Let's start with our next slide. This is from Scripture. Exodus 20 says, you shall not bear false witness. What commandment is that? Eighth, eighth commandment. John, eight, 44. The devil is called a liar and the father of lies. Romans three, eight. This is going to be a big one coming up. Let us not do evil that good may come. Let us not do evil so that good may come. Interesting. But the church's reasoning is not just biblical, as I just read here. It's moral. Do you know, I came across a quote by Mark Twain. You know, he says,

7:22one of the biggest advantages to telling the truth is you don't have to remember what you said earlier. Isn't that where lying gets us in trouble? Because we say something at the moment, oh, it's, I don't want to look embarrassed. I don't want to offend somebody. So you make something up and then a year later they bring it up to you. You don't remember it. So Mark Twain said, the biggest advantage to telling the truth is you don't have to remember what you said. Now, it was small, father. It didn't hurt anyone. Well, it hurt you. And so we used to tease camera man, just said, be god bless him. And whenever we would catch him in something and we would sometimes tease him. And then we would always tell him, brother, Mark and me that lies make the baby Jesus cry. And we would see just said he really affected him. He's like, I don't want the baby Jesus to cry.

8:24So such a good heart. I just love him. I love him a lot. And so what about though, why we do this? Okay, we need to be martyrs and witnesses to the truth. Now, nobody would bat an eyelash that the truth is so sacred. And whose truth itself? Jesus, the way I am the way the truth and the life. And nobody bats an eyelash as Christians today, Catholics, when we read about martyrs giving up their life for the faith. Oh, yeah, that's awesome. Well, the truth is so sacred and not lying that Christians are called to die rather than lie. You are called to die rather than lie. Why? You are called to so sacred that Christians are called to die rather than deny it because Christ is truth himself. And you can't deny the truth. So martyrs who refused to deny

9:30Christ were put to death. The idea that fidelity to truth sometimes demands suffering is true. This puts the discussion that it's not just biblical, it's not just moral, but lying is a spiritual issue. Let's go to our next slide. This is Thomas Aquinas. This is one of the roots and foundational saints of our entire faith. Very blessed by God. Now, Thomas Aquinas teaches that every human faculty has a reason God created it. It's called a T-lose, the reason for which something exists. What's your T-lose? What's the T-lose of the human being? Question one of the Baltimore Catechism. Why were you created? To know God, to love Him and serve Him, and to be happy with Him not only on this earth, but most of all in heaven forever. That's your T-lose. You were created for

10:34union with God. But within the human body, everything has a T-lose. What are the eyes for? They were created for seeing. What are the ears for? They were created for hearing. What is the sexual gift? Next to free will, the greatest gift God gave us. Our sexuality. What's that for? Just pleasure. Yes, if it's union between husband and wife within the sacrament of marriage, but procreation or unitive, it's not recreation. So to misuse that to just go out is abusing the gift. So what is the T-lose of speech? God gave us speech. What would be the T-lose? Communicating the truth and only the truth. If you communicate something that's not the truth, you go against the reason God created it. When a person deliberately asserts what he believes is false.

11:36So if I believe abortion is wrong, but I see everybody saying it's women's rights, okay, yeah, yeah, I'm in favor of abortion. He uses speech against its natural purpose. Aquinas considers lying, therefore, intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered by its very object, regardless of the consequences or the reasons you do it. We in this world 99.99% of people would say, well, under certain circumstances like to save a life, yes, I can lie. Not according to Thomas Aquinas. He compares lying this disorder to using other human faculties contrary to their natural end. That's like your eyes looking at pornography, your mouth speaking hatred or ill of someone. That doesn't mean you can't be upset. Christ got upset. He flipped the money tables,

12:36but he didn't speak hatred or ill intent. I mentioned the sexual act. If this is misused, not for procreation or union within spouses. So the disorder is built on the very act itself. It's the misuse of the gift of speech. God gave you speech, and only the truth is to come from it. Now, the virtue of truthfulness, Aquinas places truthfulness under justice. Really? What is justice? Giving someone their due. Do you know what virtue religion? Oh, I'm not religious, Father. I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious. Really? That's not what Christ called for to just be spiritual, but not religious. He called us to be religious, because religious is under the virtue of justice, giving God his due worship. Coming to Sunday to this mass is under the virtue of justice, because God is

13:44owed your worship. And by coming in religion to the church and worshiping him, you're giving him his just due. It is justice. So truthfulness is also under justice. Why? People deserve the truth from you. When I speak to you, I expect you're telling me the truth. And when you talk to me, you expect I'm telling you the truth. And everything I'm going to tell you here to the best of my knowledge, I could make a mistake. I could be an error, but I can tell you from my heart, everything here is from my seminary notes, is from deep research. You don't have the time to do this. This is why God made me a priest, so that I could do this for you and then teach you in a condense. What you're going to learn in an hour took me between seminary classes and studying and reading weeks, months, years. And so that's why. And so you deserve the truth when I talk to you. I deserve the truth when you

14:45talk to me. And because when we speak, we implicitly enter into a relationship of trust. I have no reason to believe you're lying to me. And you should have no reason to believe I'm lying to you. This is why truth is under justice. Others reasonably expect that we are saying and what we are saying we believe to be true, even if we make an error. Gee, I thought I honestly thought that was two years ago, not three years ago. I made an honest mistake. A lie, however, that I know his false violates that trust, that moral bond. So even if no harm results, the act itself contradicts the virtue of veracity. What's veracity? The character that you need to develop of always telling the truth. You know, we talk about habitual liars. They've lost that. Now lying is related to sins against the truth. What are sins against the truth? Rash judgment. Somebody forming a

15:51conclusion and then telling going on that basis, even though they might be wrong instead of asking the person, Columbia and detraction. I never hear these two words confessed in the confessional other than my priestly brothers, but get to learn what they mean. What is detraction and what is Columbia? They are very interesting. Columbia is breaking the eighth commandment, making a false statement, bearing false witness, telling a outright lie, you know to be false to deceive somebody, but detraction, most people don't think about. That is telling the truth, but to somebody who has no right to the truth. So Giuseppe asked me today to pray, to ask all of you to pray for his sister, okay? He said, please ask our Mary and helpers. Ask our Mary and family for prayers for my sister. He said, okay, but if he would have said to me, don't tell everybody, this is a private matter.

16:54I would have been absolutely I won't, but then if I would have got up here and said that, that's detraction because nobody else has a right to know what's going on with the personal family. Okay? Or let's suppose my neighbor gets drunk and had an affair with the other neighbor. And I get on the phone and I call my sister and Michigan to tell her, she doesn't know this person. She has no right. That's detraction. It may be true, but the person has no right to know that. And so, Columbia and detraction, what about flattery? Is flattery? Uh-huh. How about this one? Honey, does this dress make me look fat? We all know that one, right? Now an outright lie would be no, not at all, honey, but that could be out of fear. There could be duress. There could be lack of free will from the husband, but the husband, I'm not trying to give you guys a way out, but could say something like, honey, you look beautiful no matter what. And therefore, he's not talking about the dress.

18:00He just means in general, you're beautiful. You're beautiful. He doesn't have to say inside or out, she could be thinking, he means the outside, he could be thinking the inside. That is not a sin. But if you say, oh, yes, you look so super thin, you look the thinnest, I can't imagine, I'll think, now you're being dishonest. So flattery can go into that category. All right, let's keep going. All fall, these misleadings fall under the eighth commandment. She'll now bear false witness. Now, what about intrinsically evil acts? Okay, let's go to our next slide. Catholic moral theology evaluates actions according to three things. This is from Catechism 1750. The object, what kind of act it is. So today we're talking about a lie. You can put anything there for

19:04an occasion, drunkenness, pornography, whatever it is, but today we're talking about lying. So the first thing is, what is the object? What kind of act it is? So you can see on the screen, what kind of act it is. That in and of itself is grave matter, but in order for sin to be mortal, you have to have knowledge and free will. It's kind of similar here. Next, you have to have the intention to lie. Okay, this is why it was done. I lied because of blank. And then the circumstances, the context and the consequences. Well, you have to be back up. Intention would be more I intended to lie. Sometimes, you know, we could say something and not have the intention to deceive. Remember lying was the definition lying is to speak a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. So what is your intent? My intent was not to deceive you. I swear my tent was not to deceive you.

20:10So if my intent was to deceive, now we got the second element. And the third is the circumstances. Again, we're going to be talking about if the Nazi shows up at your door and you have a hiding a Jew in your attic. Do you have the right to say no? I do not have a Jew in this house. We're going to talk about it. The object is intrinsically disordered, which Aquinas and the church says lying is no good intention or circumstance can make it good. You ever hear the expression hell, the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. What does that mean? That means that it doesn't matter what your intent was, what you did, the act was wrong and sinful. So even if your intention is not to offend somebody, what about little white lies? I really didn't want to go to dinner with them. So I just told them I had a headache. You know what you're better off doing? If you really don't

21:15want to go to dinner with them, the best thing that you can do, deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow Christ, go to that dinner and offer up the suffering. Go to that dinner and offer up the suffering. Now if you truly can't make, well, Father, what if I truly can't? Then it's not a lie. I truly couldn't make it. You didn't have to say I was so looking forward to it. You just say I truly couldn't make it. I'm sorry. But if you truly can, the best thing to do to deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow Christ, is to go to that dinner and offer up the suffering because you really don't want to be there, but you don't have to act on that. Very interesting. This is why the church rejects the end justifies the means. I can never say the ends justify the means. I'm going to lie so that I can get out of that test

22:17and that'll save my grade. All I need is two more days to study for the test and therefore, and I look back. I did that in college once. I could not grasp electromagnetism. I could not grasp it. And I had all these physics classes, calculus classes, I had six courses and calculus to get the engineering degree. I could not grasp electromagnetism. Now I was trying. It wasn't that I was out partying. I was trying, but the best I could and I could not. I was not ready for the exam. And I told the professor, I emailed him at the time and I said, I am so, so sick right now. I'm sorry. Can I have an extension on the exam? That was a lie. But my, what was my ends? I wanted to save my grade. So I justified it. I'm going to learn this material. God doesn't matter if it's on Tuesday or Thursday. I'm going to learn the material. And so the ends justified the means to save

23:19my grade. I just need two more days to study for it. I look back now. That's how ill-informed I was of Catholic moral theology. Some acts may never be chosen. What acts are those? Intrinsically evil. Abortion can never be chosen. Marriage can never be redefined. And lying can never be allowed. Father, I still don't get it. What about those examples you're talking about to save a life or whatever? Keep saying we'll get there. Lying has traditionally always been included among intrinsically evil acts. Now, are all lies equally serious? Yes or no? I heard a little, no. No, they're not. Let's go to our next slide. Thomas Aquinas' he distinguishes three types of lies.

24:26Three types. The worst are the malicious lies. Those are told knowing it's false with the intent to deceive and to harm someone. That's why Columbia is so bad. Bearing false witness to destroy somebody's reputation. You know what's also a violation of? The fifth commandment. What's the fifth commandment? Murder. You don't have to kill somebody physically. Do you know the fifth commandment says does not say thou shalt not kill. War and self-defense is totally unfortunately permissible. We don't hope there is a war and pray for the situation in Iran. But the fifth commandment says you shall not murder. Okay? You just shalt not murder. Now, this is what's interesting. When you lie and make something up and you destroy the reputation, you're murdering their good name. Now,

25:30Aquinas talks, let's go back to the slide. The first is malicious lies. What is the next one? Oficious lies. This is told to try to help someone like saving a life. No, there is no Jew in my attic. There never has been, there never will be. There's no Jew in the attic. This is trying to help them It's still less serious, but it's still intrinsically evil. Father, this makes no sense to me. Again, we're going to explain. And the other one, jokos lies. Joking. Now, this is what Thomas Aquinas goes a lot further than modern-day theologians. He says all three of these violate the truth in our sinful. And I remember sitting in seminary class going, joking around is sinful? Oh my gosh. They are not equally grave though. Gravity depends on the harm you have done, the intention by which

26:31you did it, the consequences that came from it, and the rights of the person deceived if you violated the right they had to the truth. Now, what about a little white lie? We're going to get to that, but it's usually venial. A grave lie is one causing serious injustice, and that can be mortal. Now, current Catholic teaching about jokes says what? Now, Aquinas condemn them. Sometimes it's not official church teaching. The church then takes what these theologians have done, and then makes its official church teaching. So although Aquinas did say joking is a sin moral, or excuse me, current-day moral theologians say that joking can be morally permissible, and even a form of recreation provided they do not violate charity or truth.

27:33Now, whether a joke becomes sinful depends on your intent and the impact. So it could be a venial sin, a joke may be venial. A venial sin, if it's slightly mean spirited, or involves a white lie that causes them distress, or it told at an inappropriate time, but it can also be mortal if the joke destroys the reputation. It could be mortal if it is intended to cause serious harm, destroy the reputation, or involves grave matter, like cruelty or blasphemy. So what is the criteria for a good joke to play a joke on someone? Now, I hope my joke on Cameraman Giuseppe, I've played several on him. God bless him. I will tell you one that we laughed. He's a good sport. He was always very conscientious, and so Brother Mark and I decided to play a joke on him one day, so I had to fly

28:35into Hartford. So Peter tells Cameraman Giuseppe to go pick me up in Hartford, and I'm landing, and so Brother Mark and I are laughing that let's play a joke on Cameraman Giuseppe. So our intent was just to have fun, but it kind of spot rolled out. This is where you're going to be careful. So I land and I land in Hartford, and Peter told Giuseppe to go to Hartford. So Giuseppe is on his way to Hartford. So I call him up on the phone. I said, where are you at? I said, hey, by the way, I haven't eaten all day, and I just casually put in, because we usually find Albany or Hartford. So I casually put in, I said, hey, look, get on your GPS and try to find a good place around the Albany Airport, so that we can, you know, grab a bite to eat. I said, it really casual. I flew into Hartford, and he was driving to Hartford. But I played a joke on him, said, find a place around the Albany Airport. There's this long pause. And he goes,

29:39Albany, and I said, yes, you're not going to Hartford, are you? Just teasing him. And he's like, and then he goes, Peter told me to, so he threw Peter under the bus, it was so funny. But then it's parallel to control, because then he got worried, and he's on the expressway, and he pulled over on the expressway. And then I'm like, no, I'm just joking, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, because, you know, obviously, if you put somebody in safety danger, you can't do that. And so I immediately apologized, but it was so funny, because we just wanted to play an innocent joke on him, because just to get him all riled up, because he thought he messed up and went to the wrong airport. But it ended up being fine. He was fine. But you have to be careful, because joking can do something like that. You don't want to, you know, get somebody in a safety issue. So anyway, what does the church say about what is a good joke? One, done in charity. It must be not rooted in malice or desire to humiliate somebody, but just to have fun. Prudence, it should consider the

30:46temperament and the boundaries of the person being teased. Caromangisepi is the best. He can laugh at himself. He always has. We know that about him. And it needs to be done in moderation. It shouldn't be excessive or interfere with their duties or their time to pray. So in short, if the joke is lighthearted and the victim can laugh along with you, like, Cameramanisepi, it's typically considered an expression of joy, not sinful at all. Like I said, he was a good sport. So, but be careful. Now, is lying and deception the same? Lying and deception, is it the same? No. Lying is asserting what you believe to be false with the intent to deceive. Deception causes someone to believe something false, which can occur without asserting a falsehood. So, all lies are deceptive,

31:54but not all deception is lying. What do I mean by that? All right. Silence. If somebody thinks, oh, don't you like this show and it's really bad or it's not more like, you just smile. You didn't say anything false. You didn't do anything false, but you just smiled and kind of gave the impression that you think it's a good show. That's not lying, but it is deception. All right. What about refusal to answer? It's kind of like the same as silence. Changing the subject. Somebody asks, you know, a father, can you do this or what are your thoughts about that? Hey, did you see that Detroit Lions football game the other day? I'm avoiding the subject. I don't want to answer it. I'm not lying, but I'm making them think it's not a big deal.

32:58I'll let's talk about football instead. What about an ambiguous wording? That is hilarious when you hear these word salads of these politicians. That just ramble. What about withholding information? It depends. Sometimes that might be allowed. So, the right to the truth. This is the biggie. Catechism 2488 and 2489 teach that the right to the truth is conditional. What are you doing with the truth? Somebody may not have the right if they say what time is so-and-so coming home because you know that it may be an abusive relationship and they want to beat that person up. It doesn't mean you lie and say they're in California, but you don't have to tell them. That's not lying. Charity and justice govern communication. So, one is not bound to reveal the truth to someone

34:05who has no right to the truth. So, now let's get to the Nazi at the door. An unjust aggressor asks whether innocent persons are hidden inside your home. So, it's World War II. The Nazis come to your door. You're hiding a Jewish family in your attic because you know they're going to be killed. They come. They ask you, are you harboring Jews? According to classic teaching, you may refuse to answer. That's not lying, but that was going to put you in a tough spot. You may shut the door. Again, it's not lying, but put you in a tough spot. You may distract. Hey, I just saw the American troops going down that way. If you did, or I saw a bunch of other soldiers coming, if you did, that's a distraction. You may speak broadly or even evasively, but not lie, you may use legitimate, which is called mental reservation.

35:13This is a fascinating concept coming up shortly. But Aquinas says you may not assert there are no Jews in this house anywhere. If you know that that is false. But Father, come on. You mean it's okay to turn them over to be killed? You know, we're not saying that. You don't have to say, go up the stairs, turn to your right, and they're in the door on the third door down. You do not have to do that. But why can't you say there are no Jews in this house when there are, even though you know the intent is bad? Because the falsehood of the moral object of the act of lying is intrinsically evil. This is really hard to believe, or I should say believe, to accept. Even saving a life does not justify choosing any intrinsic evil according to the church.

36:18You could say there are no Jews here and go like this, giving them the thought, letting them think what they want. But you're really meaning on the porch. There are no Jews here. So you didn't say it, you didn't lie, but you were referring to you were giving the impression you were talking about the church. Or why would I do something illegal? That's a good answer. The Nazis come to my door, are you harboring Jews? Why would I do something illegal? You didn't say a lie, because they don't have a right to the truth. Now, we're going to watch a short video. These are two of the most respected men for me in the Catholic church, and they vehemently disagree. This is fascinating. This is Matt Frad. I'm Pints of Aquinas, and my favorite philosopher in the whole world, Peter Krieft. I want you to watch this one-minute video and tell me who's right and who's wrong.

37:24Let's let Brother Mark show this video. So I don't think that lying to another person to protect him is a bad thing. Suppose, for instance, your father, I think it is. I've come to that. I'd love you to turn and talk me out of that, but... Okay, you're a Dutchman. You're hiding Jews in the attic for the Nazis. The Nazis come to your door. They say, do you have any Jews here? I think what ordinary people would call lying, if you use that definition, I think your moral obligation is to lie to the Nazis, because you promised to the Jews to hide them, and hiding is a kind of lying. So you promise to lie, you must fulfill that promise, because that lie will not only save the lives of the Jews, but save the Germans who want to kill them from an additional sin, and therefore perhaps shorten their purgatory. I think we should define lying and then stick to that definition. So if lying is speaking a falsehood with intention of deceiving, then I wouldn't say that hiding is a type of lying.

38:24I would. I would. Sometimes deception is good. Okay, so you saw that video. Basically, what Peter Krieft is saying is, if it's to save a life, I can lie here in this case with the Nazi at the door, and Matt Fred's saying, that's not Aquinas is teaching. That's not Catholic Church teaching. Who's right and who's wrong? I said before, I respect these two men. These are two, the most respected men for me personally in the entire church. But who's right and who's wrong? Actually here, Matt Fred is right. You can't. But that doesn't mean you have to turn them over to the Nazis. So I found that video fascinating, that two of the biggest heavy weights in the Catholic Church disagree. What I'm giving you is what I learned in seminary.

39:25So that's the side. And that's what Matt Fred was basically saying. Now, did God lie to Samuel? You remember this? Did God tell Samuel to lie in the first book of Samuel, chapter 16, verse 1 through 5? Yeah, Father. Let's look at this. Samuel was afraid that Saul would kill him. If he learns, if Saul learns that Samuel, he is going to annoy David as king. So what did God say? No, be a man. Be strong. Suck it up and face the consequences. That what God said? No. God said, take a heifer with you and tell him that I have come to make a sacrifice for the Lord. That sounds like a lie to me, doesn't it? Is that a lie? No. It was a true statement. Samuel really was going to offer a sacrifice. So that is not false. So he did not speak

40:30contrary to what was in his mind. What is the classical Catholic definition of lying? Knowing something and using your mind and then your words contradict what is in your mind. When you do that, you have violated your existence of a human person. We are rational beings and God created speech to reflect what is in your mind and when the two contradict, I know in my mind I'm lying, but my words are saying one thing, my mind thinking another, you have violated the dignity of your human person. Now, it was not deception either through falsehood. God did not tell Samuel to say something untrue. He told him to mention one real purpose of his visit without revealing the second intention. We are not morally obligated to give that information to somebody who's not acting out of charity and justice, and Saul was not. He was going to kill Samuel. Withholding information is not the same thing as

41:35lying. Let me repeat that. Withholding information is not the same thing as lying. God permitted Samuel to speak a true statement. I'm going to offer sacrifice without part of his intention to anoint David, because avoiding unjust harm was the result. Now, that doesn't mean that he could lie to avoid unjust harm, but he means he can withhold some of the truth. Catholic theology makes a very important distinction between lying, which again, speaking falsehood with the intent to deceive, which is always wrong, with concealment, not revealing all the truth when someone has no right to it. Catechism, 2488, 2489, teaches that the right to truth depends on justice and charity. Saul, who was prepared to kill, commit violence, did not have a right to the full reason

42:39Samuel was visiting. Fascinating. Now, this one to me is very interesting. I want to get to you mental reservation. Let's go to our next slide. Mental reservation. You ever hear the term? Moral theologians have developed this in recent times, and there's broad mental reservation, and there's strict mental reservation. Mental reservation is where you say something that you're ambiguous, so that they can form a conclusion that may be different than the actual truth, but you didn't lie. A statement is technically true, but maybe incomplete, but they have an openness to interpret. It is using words that are technically true, but could be understood in two different ways. So this is sometimes permitted. For instance, back to the Jewish example with

43:41the Nazis. There is no one here for you. If I'm asked, I got the Jews in my attic, and the Nazis come to the door, and I answer, they say, is there a Jew? Are you harboring Jews? And I say, there is no one here for you. Why is that not a lie? That means no one you have the right to take. There's no one here for you. Now, that gives them the impression there's nobody in the house, but by me using mental reservation, I'm not lying. I know people say, Father, you son of like you're trying to find loopholes here. This isn't me. This is the teaching of the church. And so by saying to the Jews, there's no or to the Nazis, there's no one here for you. That means there's no one that you have the right to seize. There's no one here for you. I didn't say there was nobody specifically in the attic. I just said, there's no one here for you, but I gave the impression that they're free to believe. And if they don't believe it, then now at least I've

44:48not committed a disordered intrinsic evil. Now, that's broad mental reservation. What is strict mental reservation? This is adding a condition that nobody could ever think any differently. Okay, no reasonable listener could infer what you're saying from this, but one thing and one thing only. This is condemned as deception beyond moral limits. Let me give you an example. We had a person that I was working with and they were in their office and there was another person in the office and they got a call. It was a very tense phone call. It was the third person who told me this story. And they had a month speaker phone and the person said that was on the speaker phone to the person at the desk. Is there anyone in your office right now? They literally grabbed the person that was standing next to him, shoved him outside the doorway.

45:52One foot outside the doorway and said, there is nobody in my office. Now, that's pretty clear. There's no openness to interpretation here. And so the guy on the speaker box started going on with this conversation and then he pulled the guy back in. You might as well have outright lied. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. Because now this is strict mental reservation. I didn't technically lie at that moment. There was nobody in my office, he might say. But that's completely outside moral bounds. Because that guy on the other end has no other interpretation that there is nobody and there will be nobody in that office. So when he says, there's anybody in your office and he shoves them just outside the doorway, there's nobody in my office right now. And as soon as the guy starts talking, he shoves them back in. He has no other interpretation, but there is nobody there with the Jew, the Nazis. That is an

46:55open interpretation. There's nobody here for you. You see the difference? And so, mental reservation is an important concept. Now, I want to teach you something that was fascinating in Catholic moral theology going back. And this is called the principle of double effect. Let's go to our next slide. The principle of double effect, what if an action has two outcomes? One good, one bad. Hmm, what's the famous example? Removing a cancerous uterus to save a mother's life, even though the child will die. And the doctors and the mother know that the child will die. But they remove the cancerous uterus to save the mother's life. Is this a sin?

47:57By the principle of double effect, it is not because their intent was not to kill the baby. Their intent was to save the life of the mother. Now, some mothers have chosen to save the baby and to give up their own life. That's an incredible act of virtue. But I'm not up here telling you mothers, you have to do that. That is not Catholic church teaching. I'm only going to give you Catholic church teaching. And so, removing a cancerous uterus to save a mother's life, even though they foresee the death of the child, it is foreseen, but it is not intended. So what is the principle of double effect? One, if you meet these conditions and there's four of them, then it is not sinful. One, the act itself must be morally good or neutral, saving the mother's life morally good. Okay, you cannot choose an intrinsically evil act. I'm going to kill the baby,

49:01abortion, new. So that's the first condition. Second, the bad effect must not be intended. So the baby, when they're saving the mother's life by removing a cancerous uterus, losing the baby was not intended. The bad effect cannot be intended. It can be foreseen, but not willed. Next, the good effect must not be produced by means of the bad effect. In other words, I can't intentionally kill the baby just to save the life of the mother. That is morally wrong. In that case, the mother would be asked for a heroic act of virtue. But in this case, they are not the good effect saving the mother is not produced by going into kill the baby. So the good effect must not be produced by means of the bad effect. You cannot do evil in order

50:06to achieve good. And lastly, there must be proportionately grave reason. The good must outweigh the bad. Now, in this example, the mother must be equal to or outweigh the bad. Here it's equal to because the both are human life. So again, this is the example of the principle of double effect. It's very interesting. I gave the just worth theory talk a couple years ago on the dropping of the atomic bomb. And by the way, in August, on the anniversary, I'm going to be doing a talk on the priests in Nagasaki. When the atomic bomb hit, they were at ground zero. And everybody within a certain radius died. Nine priests were untouched. Unbelievable story. But the reason that doesn't meet through the principle of double effect is because even though killing is not intrinsically

51:07evil, believe it or not, there can be war. There can be war. But the good effect must not be produced by means of the bad effect. In the dropping of the atomic bomb, the good effect to save American lives was produced by the bad effect of dropping the bomb. So it doesn't fit under this category. Even though I'm a huge proponent of our US military and a huge historian of the world wars that saved the free world, I cannot justify based on Catholic teaching the atomic bomb. And if you want, you can see my talk on that. Now, why the principle of double effect cannot justify lying? For Aquinas and for all Catholic theology is because lying is intrinsically evil. So it fails the first condition. The first condition is that the act must be morally good or neutral. It cannot

52:08be intrinsically evil. Lying is intrinsically evil. So it fails the first condition. You can never say, I'm going to lie to save the Jews. Because lying is intrinsically evil, you can't use an intrinsically evil act to bring about a good that scripture. We read it to you in the beginning of this talk. Therefore, if the act itself is morally wrong in its object, a lie, double effect cannot apply. You cannot say, I will commit a small intrinsic evil to bring about a greater good. Why? Because the Bible tells us in Romans chapter three, verse eight, let us not do evil that good may come. This is hard. This is hard. So if you say there are no Jews anywhere in this house, the never has been, the never will be. I do not have a single Jew. There's no Jew in my op attic. That falsehood

53:09is your chosen act. The good saving the life comes through an evil. Again, there's ways around this. The lie is not a side effect. It is the chosen means you have selected. Therefore, it fails conditions one that is intrinsically evil and condition three. The good effect must not be produced by means of the bad effect. You are producing a good by an evil act. We can never do that. Double effect can apply to things like silence or refusal or ambiguous speech. Those acts are not intrinsically evil, but it can apply to lying. One more, proportionalism. This is very important. This came about recently. An act is justified if the good effects outweigh the bad period. That's why most people look to this example of the Jews. It tends to collapse the moral object into

54:16consequences. It doesn't matter if what I do is good or bad, the consequences are good. The church formally rejects this. John Paul II, a very Tati splendor. He reaffirms some acts are intrinsically evil by the very reason of their object, a lie, and no good intention can transform them. Thus lying cannot be justified by weighing outcomes. However, modern-day theologians have argued perhaps deception of an unjust aggressor does not constitute a lie in the strict moral sense. Perhaps the moral object is not lying but self-defense. Now if you can prove that, now you don't have an intrinsic evil, your object is self-defense rather than false assertion. This is

55:18debated, but this is a debate about the moral object, not about the concept of proportionalism, but the church today still maintains lying is always intrinsically evil. Very powerful. Did you ever hear how the church falsified baptism certificates in World War II? So the story goes to save the lives of many Jews, the Catholic church falsified baptismal certificates to show the Nazis that these people are not Jewish. What they used to do is they used to make the men drop their pants and see if they were circumcised or not. But women can't do that. So they would forge baptismal certificates. Now is that morally allowed? Could the church do that?

56:22During the Holocaust, the clergy, some religious communities, issued false documents to protect Jews, even Max Million Cold Bay did this, priest did it, convinced did it, monasteries did it, religious communities did it. They were intending to act heroically, but this raises a question because issuing a knowingly false certificate appears to be a false assertion to deceive. The church has never issued a magisterial declaration saying it is morally okay to lie to save a life. The church has never said this. It gives three views, the very strict traditional view. This act of making the false documents is objectively disordered, but there's less culpability, responsibility for those who did it because they had, they were under duress. They were scared.

57:28Did they were going to kill these people? The second view is the moral object argument. The unjust aggressors, they forfeit their right to know the truth. So the act is not a formal lie. Again, the act is self-defense. And then third view is called the pastoral tolerance. This is heroic action in a tragic moral conflict without doctrinal revision. The church never changed their teaching. They did it, but they never changed their teaching. The church honors those who saved the lives of those Jews, but has never altered its teaching that lying is intrinsically evil. Now here's what Father Ripperger said. I found this last night. He said something fascinating. He thinks it's wrong that they issued those documents because it was a false statement in order

58:28to deceive the definition of a lie. But then as he went on, he said something interesting. He said, but when you really look at it, it was not a lie. It was not saying the false to deceive. He said it was fraud, doing the false to deceive. And doing the false could be interpreted anyway. Like if I go up and I write down a piece of paper, but I don't hand it to you and say follow it, I just hand it to you and it says something incorrect, my birthday, or my social security number. That's fraud. That's an act of fraud. I did not publicly make a statement that was trying to deceive you. I just wrote something down. So Ripperger says it was not a lie. A lie is saying the false to deceive.

59:36Here he said he was fraud, doing the false to deceive. Big difference, but surprisingly, similar. Now, almost done, we're getting there. What about the culpability? The Catholic church distinguishes the objective nature of an act from the subjective culpability of the actor. There could be fear, coercion, duress, or grave emergency that can reduce your guilt, your culpability, even if the object is wrong. So even if the something is wrong, you may not be as culpable, because of fear, coercion, duress. And that would be the case in Nazi Germany. Now I had a second video I was going to show you, but I'm running behind on time. So I'm going to have Brother Mark skip this video, but I'll tell you basically what it says. The video basically says

1:00:41there's a couple different ways to look at lying. What are you culpable if you say something that's false, but you honestly thought it was true. Are you culpable? I've hit people coming to the confession, oh my gosh, father, I said this, but I ended up finding out it was not true. I got to confess it. If you honestly at the time thought it was true and it ended up being false, you're not culpable. Now it might be good to go back to those people and tell them, you know, I told you that that car was only in one accident. I found out it was in three accidents. I really didn't know that. What you said was untrue, but you didn't know it. Now what if you say something false, but it ends up being true? I've had that situation. You say something false, but it ends up being true.

1:01:45You know what? You say that your flight was delayed. You thought that, or no, you see somebody else's flight was delayed. Let's suppose you're going to pick somebody up at the airport and you're meeting a third person for dinner and you forgot. You say, oh, we didn't make it because their flight was delayed. You lied. You thought it was false, but it ended up being true. The flight really was delayed. I've had people say, hey, great. I didn't lie. I've had myself. I've done that when I was a teenager. Great. I didn't lie. I said that their flight was delayed. That's why we didn't make dinner. I intended it to be a falsehood, but it ended up being true. Is that culpability? Do you have culpability for that? You didn't lie. It was the truth. Yes, because you had the intent.

1:02:47You know what's kind of like the man who has the intent to fornicate, and then he shows up to elicit the improper service of somebody and that person doesn't show up. The call girl doesn't show up. Oh, I don't have to worry about it. I never did commit that, and I went home then. You had the intent when you went there. Even though you didn't go through with it, guess what? You got to sin without the fun. That is culpability. Now, the third example, as you know, the video probably would have been shorter than me explaining it. The third example on the video is where it is both materially and formally sinful, evil. I say it is false, know it is false, and it actually ends up being false. That's the worst type. That's full

1:03:51blown culpability. So that's what I wanted to point out in the second video, but like I said, we'll keep moving here. All right. Now, what about those who are scrupulous? Given how strict this teaching is on lying, I want to clarify something. Not every imprecise statement is a lie. You can work around it. Is imperfect memory lying? Like, I don't have always a good memory. I remember being in meetings. I said, well, no, they said this, and then we call the person. They're like, no, I said that. Did I lie? No, it's imperfect memory. So don't be too scrupulous here. Correct it, though. What about polite phrasing? That's not automatically sinful. The example with the man with the wife's dress. That is not automatically sinful. You can say, honey, you look beautiful no matter

1:04:53what you wear because you're meaning just you on the inside. culpability requires knowledge and intent. Now, what about exaggeration and hyperbole? All right. Exaggeration can take different forms. It is sinful if it is intended to deceive. If you've used it to manipulate, to impress, to inflate, or distort reality, how much money do you make? Oh, I'm six figures when you're not. That's sinful. Oh, I've done that a thousand times. Now you're talking hyperbole. So we said before, when I told Nancy, I got a million things to do today. Was I lying? If I really wasn't busy, even though I'm using hyperbole, I am lying. But I really am busy. I really do have a full day today. So I'm not lying. I used hyperbole. But if you say, oh, I've

1:05:55done it a thousand times, making them think you're an expert. But you have it. Now you're lying. Now it's not sinful. If it's like I said, just saying, I got a million things to do today. That's an expression. If I'm really am busy, there was no intent to mislead. Now scripture uses hyperbole. Jesus says, if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Right? And so here's what you got to ask yourself. Am I trying to impress someone? If you are vanity, am I trying to avoid embarrassment? If you are vanity, am I trying to manipulate a situation? Then lack of charity. What would I say this if Christ were right here? And so habitual exaggeration can damage the soul's orientation to truth. Bitterly exaggerating. All right, we're almost done.

1:06:57Here's a big one. White lies. Let's go to our next slide. And I'm sorry, we skipped the video. And so there's a video. There's a slide. You look great. Now you're getting into a white lie. When the look is just not good at all. Like covered with tattoos. Your daughter comes home covered in tattoos and you think it looks horrible. You say, how do you look great? What about white lies? A white lie is a false statement to spare feelings. It still meets the definition of lying. Why? Because it's morally wrong. It could be usually vigno. It's a lesser harm. But habitual, small lies deform the soul. Better option. Keep silent.

1:08:00They get the point. Affirm something else that is true. Your daughter comes home covered in tattoos. You don't have to say those tattoos look great. But you could say, you know what? I love you. That'll completely not offend them. But you didn't have to say the tattoo looks great of some toad swallowing a calf. You know, it doesn't have to say, you don't have to say that looks great. So careful wording or some python swallowing a deer. You can change the subject gently. As I said, go back to, hey, I forgot to tell you there's a great show on TV today. So we are called to speak the truth in love. As I said before, the best thing you could do if somebody wants to go out to dinner with you and they just annoy the daylights out of you. Remember the surest way to have it is the cross. You know who you're going to be most thankful for when you die. The people on this earth who annoyed you the most. That is who you are going to be most thankful for when you die.

1:09:05But if you ignore them and you never associate with them and you block them and you do everything else, you're missing the merit. Now that's not sinful. But you're missing the merit. You can get a lot of merit. As I said, if you don't want to go to dinner with that person and you really are busy, then you have a reason. But if you're not busy, you're just laying on the couch and you say, oh, you know what? My daughter is coming over to visit tonight. I'm sorry, I can't make it. And it's a complete lie. Now you're sinful. But you could go even though you don't want to. As I said before and offer it up. That's the best thing to do with a situation like that. Now you're doing penance. You don't have to tell them that. They have no right to know that. You don't have to tell them, you know, I'm only here tonight because I'm doing penance because Father Chris said, if somebody really annoys me that I should go. So hello. Here I am. No. We don't do that. All right,

1:10:12so the big picture, Catholic world theology draws a hard line because it protects two principles. Some acts may never be directly chosen and transically evil. But culpability depends on the intention and the circumstances. So if somebody did say there were no Jews in this house, they're not going to lose their soul over that. It's probably at worst a venial sin. But all sins hurt our Lord. And we can't do shoes willingly that no matter any circumstance. The framework, yes, this is demanding. It's deliberately demanding. The Catholic Church teaching resists looking at the consequences. The ends do not justify the means. This end justify the means reasoning is against church teaching. You have to have this intent that you're not going

1:11:17to commit an evil to say good came from it. Pure these outcome-based moralities that you see all over in these these tele-evangelist church, totally against church teaching. So I wrap it up with this. We're going to have Mark show the final couple slides. The final synthesis. I'm going to summarize this whole talk for you right now. One, a lie is speaking of falsehood with intent to deceive. We've said that. Habitual small lies deform the soul. Lying is intrinsically disordered and it can never be allowed to bring about a good. It may never be directly chosen even for a good end. Not everyone has a right to the truth. Silence, concealment, and careful wording may be permissible. I usually get so upset with my mom.

1:12:27My mom was such a good heart. She wanted to give everybody who called for me a dissertation on my entire day. So they would call up and say is Chris there. And my mom would have to go through the entire litany. Well, he was there. Then he went over here. And then he went over there. And then we went over here. I never told my mom that I had one relationship that was ending and I had met somebody else. I was starting another relationship. So what does my mom do? Seize that person and says, oh, father Chris or father Chris, I wasn't father then. Chris went over there and that caused all kinds of trouble. That person didn't have a need to know that. But her intent was good. But it didn't justify it. Now, she, I mean, she didn't have to say that. She didn't sin, but she didn't have to say that. Double effect can never justify lying. Proportionalism is rejected.

1:13:28Copability may be reduced in extreme duress, like fearing for your life. So the debate continues about the precise moral object in extreme defensive deception cases. So for instance, is lying to the Nazis? What is the moral object? Is it lying? In that case, you can't do it or is it self-defense? The whole question is debated. So, infamously, we're going to go to our last slide in one sentence. I'm going to summarize everything here in one sentence. This wraps it up. Lying is always wrong in Catholic moral theology because it deliberately uses speech contrary to its God-given purpose of communicating the truth. Explain that. And no good consequence

1:14:30can transform that moral object into something good. It is intrinsically evil and it cannot be made good. That's why people say, well, Father, wait a minute. You said, God's grace could transform us. We're not intrinsically evil. We have sin on our soul, but God's grace can transform our soul. We're not created intrinsically evil. What are we created? Morally good, intrinsically good. And so, no good consequence can transform that moral object into something good. Although responsibility for the act may be diminished in tragic circumstances, such as saving someone's life. So, I hope this made sense because it's very surprising that the church takes such a hard stance on never allowing lying, but you've got to know what

1:15:31lying means. It is knowing it as a falsehood with the intent to deceive. Doesn't mean you have to give everybody all the information. Doesn't mean you can't use certain things in certain circumstances like mental reservation. Broad is okay, strict is not. And so, we finish by saying, going back to my notes here has really helped me because I'm going to be very careful about even the tiniest, slightest exaggeration. I use hyperbole all the time. And if it's not understood as hyperbole, I can't do it. I can't mislead. I might be like, oh yeah, I've done that all the time. I've only done it twice. That's not all the time. I'm making myself out to be an expert when I am not.

1:16:32And that is what humility is about. Humility is not thinking less of yourself. Like I always say, Barry Sanders saying, oh, I wasn't a good football player. He was the best ever. Humility is not thinking less of yourself. Humility is thinking of yourself less. And so, if we say something and we exaggerate to the point that makes, oh, I make six figures. When you don't, now it's vanity. Now it's deception. So, little things like even an exaggeration that we don't even think about can be morally crippling to the soul. So, I hope this talk today will help you realize the importance of the truth. I've always said, I'm only here for one reason to bring souls to Christ. And how do I bring souls to Christ? To me, there's a lot of different ways. For me, it's the truth. That is how I'm trying to bring souls to Christ. That's why I do what we do

1:17:40here. God bless you. And you know what? I do want to show our pilgrimages. If Brother Mark can show on the screen. Our pilgrimage on the Greek cruise is sold out. So, God bless all of you who will be joining us. I'm excited to see all of you. But we got a few more coming up. If you want to look on your screen there, we'd love to have you join us. You can contact Peter. He's in the office today. He's at Peter James at Marian.org, or you can call him at 413-298-1303. And if you're here and you don't see the slide, that's okay. It'll remain up. But the next trip I'll be doing is Poland, the footsteps of St. Faustina. And this is going to the World Apostolic Congress on Mercy. I said before I was invited by the Bishop of Vilnius where the image of divine mercy was painted to go and speak at the World Congress on Mercy in Lithuania, which is next to Poland. So we're going to tour the footsteps of St. Faustina. She lived in Poland in Lithuania. That's June 7th through

1:18:44the 17th. So only 10 days. Then we're going to the Holy Land. I explained to you before. And if conditions change now with the Iran situation, we will fully keep abreast of it daily. So you don't have to worry, but we're still planning on it right now. That's December 14th through the 23rd. And then we have a piggyback off of that. If you wish to do the second part, that's the Old Testament pilgrimage of Jordan, Mount Sinai, and Egypt. I'll be teaching you about the Old Testament. That is September 23rd through October 3rd. And then if you wish, there's a Nile extension to cruise the Nile. I'm going to tell you all about that. And then lastly, in 2027, we'll be going to Croatia. I've been invited to go back my hometown. My grandparents are from a little tiny town of 75 people. And we'll be going there, but we're going to go to Medjugorje. We're going to go to all the Merian shrines around the Adriatic. It's just incredibly beautiful. And so

1:19:46if you're interested in joining us for Croatia, that'll be sometime in 2027. And so God bless all of you. We're very grateful that you could be with us. And maybe consider joining us on one of those pilgrimages. Like I said, I got some mean letters. How dare I go around the world spending the donor's money? Let me please clarify this again. A few letters have affected me like those ones did. We are not spending a dollar of our donor's money to go on pilgrimage. In fact, nativity tours and the owner, Jacob, from the Holy Land, is donating all the prophets to our seminarians to pay their way through seminary. I am doing for these a year. It kills me. But because I have to raise funds for our seminarians, it costs money to put them through seminary. But every time I groaned and I'm like, oh, I'm not going to be able to do this. I'm tired. I'm exhausted. I love it

1:20:48when we go. I meet new people. We get to have dinner. We get to show you the main areas of our faith. We get to look where's Faustina was. We're going to be able to go through all that's beautiful. And so that's why we do it. So please, if you think that I'm just running around spending our donor's money for joyful vacations, it's nothing of a vacation for me. It's very busy. It's very demanding. But again, I love it. And God's grace is huge. And when we go, this is how I'm paying for our seminarians to get through seminary. And so we hope that you'll join us if you can. So praise me to God and keep in mind, even those little white lies. Try to work on those. Amen. And may Almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God bless you. Go and peace. The talk is ended. Thanks be to God. God bless you. Thank you,

1:21:49everybody. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody. Thank you,