Dear Dylan:

Moral theology and civilized philosophy states that the "ends does not justify the means". No matter how good the end result may be, we cannot get to that end result through methods that are evil, unethical, or immoral.

The Catechism states:

I. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

This teaching and moral absolute must be the governing factor in determining specific cases of actions and their ends.

For example the Fifth Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) is not suspended because one is defending oneself. Rather, we have to take into consideration the principles of moral theology.  We have a right and even a duty to defend ourselves, but we cannot "intend" to kill the intruder or attacker. Rather, the the principle of "double effect" applies whereby in the course of defending oneself killing the other person becomes necessary as the only possible way to defend oneself. The intention is to stop the attacker, not to kill the attacker, but killing the attacker may be required in order to defend oneself.

The Catechism explains:

 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2264 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. ...

The 7th Commandment (thou shalt not steal) is not suspended because one is starving and in need of shelter. One cannot commit a sin even if the commission of the sin leads to a good end. This is the excuse many inner city criminal use. They believe they have no choice but to steal in order to survive. This is false.

To sin to survive is an act of faithlessness and lack of trust in God. God promises that He will provide if we depend upon him. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

Concerning the 8th Commandment (thou shalt not bear false witness), again the commandment is not suspended for any reason.

So what can we do in certain critical circumstances?

St. Thomas More gives us an example. One can look for a technical loophole, as he did, that allows one to do something without compromising the truth. Thomas More tried to find such a loophole where he could technically give his affirmation to King Henry's request for a signed oath, while yet not compromising his Catholic faith. More could not find that technical loophole and thus refused to sign the oath and was illegally executed as a result.

In a biography of St. Thomas More is this notation:

In 1534 he was one of the people accused of complicity with Elizabeth Barton, the nun of Kent who opposed Henry's break with Rome, but was not attained due to protection from the Lords who refused to pass the bill until More's name was off the list of names. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17.  More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His final words on the scaffold were: "The King's good servant, but God's First."

The method of the Saint, called Wide Mental Reservation, can be applied in other dilemmas.

For example, during World War II there were many Catholics who hid Jews in their houses and property. When the Nazi SS troops came knocking on the door asking, "Do you have any Jews here?" what can we say that will not be a technical lie, but will also help to save our Jewish friends?

The question is, "Do you have any Jews here?" Well, the Jews we are hiding may be in the barn out back thus they are not "here" in the house. Thus, we can tell the soldiers that they are not here and that will not be a lie, as they are not "here" in the house. Or if we have hidden the Jews in the attic, or in the basement, or in a secret room, we can say that the Jews are not "in the house" since the house is the living space. The attic, basement, or secret room is not living space.

Is this a deception? Yes, because we know the information the soldiers are looking for, but we use a loophole in the definition of "here" and "house" to avoid telling them where the Jews are located. Is is a lie? technically no, if we interpret "here" and "house" in the way we have in this illustration.

There are some who would say that this is too much "hair splitting" and that a lie is a lie is a lie, that any deception is a lie. Such people would say that since we know what the soldiers are asking, what they mean by their question, that our not answering according to the intention of their question is a lie. But, we are not required to act according to "their" intention.

The Catechism tells us that "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." Certainly the SS soldiers do not have the right to know where our Jewish friends are at so that they may kill them.

In the same paragraph of the Catechism (2489) it is stated that "the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not to be known or for making use of a discreet language."

Here the Church is telling us that we can be silent when asked the question or can use "discreet" language that technically tells the truth, but at the same time does not reveal the complete truth to those who ought not know it.

Thus, if there is no technical way to avoid telling the truth to a person who does not deserve to know it, our only choice is to say, "I will not tell you" or be silent.

Many people use this argument about lying to the Nazis to protect Jews as an excuse to show that lying is sometimes allowed. This argument is false. The argument is used as an excuse to lie in other situations.

The scenario is an extreme and unique one that is not likely to be experienced by most people. In addition, the answer to this question remains that is it is not permitted to outright lie.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia on Mental Reservation.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary