Dear Lesley:

You have come upon a very difficult subject that has been debated since the time of Plato. Aristotle taught that lying in any case was wrong. Plato was a little more accommodating.

Likewise with the Church Fathers there are various opinions. Some allow for lying in certain limited circumstances, such as lying to a murderer to protect the intended victim. St. Augustine, on the other had said there was not situation that justifies a lie.

The Western Church throughout the centuries has take the Augustinian view.

It is difficult to speak in generics about scientific research, but I would make this observation: while lying is a an of deception, not all deception is lying.

For example, a typical experiment of a new drug will give one group the actual drug and another group a sugar pill. The participants are told the truth that some will get the real thing and some will not, but they are not told if who specifically received the real drug.

There is no lie in this, but there is a deception in that everyone thinks they may be getting the real drug but are never told.

If a subject asks whether or not he is getting the drug, one does not have to lie, but to say, "Sorry I cannot tell you that". Actually, usually the experimenters also do not know who received the real drug either.

As an example made by St. Thomas More, one can also look for a technical loophole 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 VIII'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 attainted 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 can be applied in this question. For example, during World War II there were many Catholics who hid Jews in their houses and property. When the SS troops came knocking on the door asking, "Do you have any Jews here?" what should 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. 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.

Is this a deception? Yes, because we know what the soldiers want but are using a loophole in the definition of "here" to avoid telling them where the Jews are at. Is is a lie? technically no if we interpret "here" in the way we have in this illustration.

There are some who would say that this is too much "splitting hairs" and a lie is a lie is a lie, that any deception is a lie, that knowing what the soldiers mean when they asked their question and thus not answering it with that understanding is a lie.

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 are 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 make us of "discreet" language (tricky rhetoric) that technically tells the truth, but at the same time does not reveal the truth to those who ought not know it.

Thus I think that the response in the story of the SS troops and the hiding Jews fits the Church's teaching here, in addition to being essentially the same response as modelled by St. Thomas More.

The specifics of these issues has never been definitively resolved. Ultimately the decision must be made according to our own conscience on a case-by-case basis. There can be no firm and solid rule that will cover all cases unless we take the position of absolute avoidance of deception however defined and regardless of circumstances.

This strict approach, however, would mean that we must tell our kids the truth about Santa Claus. It means that if someone asks us how we are feeling, we cannot say "fine" if we are not fine even though our feelings are none of the other person's business and we do not want to get into it. We cannot say "good morning" if we really feel it is not a "good" morning. We cannot wear clothing that hides our bulging waist, or wear make-up to hide our terrible looking eye lashes or a blemish.

If we are to take the position of absolute truthfulness without any mitigation, even that allowed by the Church, then be prepared to life that way.

I do not believe in "white lies". There is always a way to avoid white lies. But there are ways to avoid the question or to tell the truth in a way does tell then truth but that misdirects the person from information that he should not know. Of course, such misdirection needs to be for a valid reason, but if such "discreet language", as the Church calls it, cannot be used, then prepare for the BOLD and UNABASHED and NAKED truth in all situations.

Throw out the make-up, throw out the clothes that hide the imperfections of our bodies, tell your wife, "hey, you're fat", if you dislike someone do not pretend that you do, never say "good morning" when you are having a terrible morning and do not feel like saying "good morning".

There are times on this Q&A that I want to say to a person, "You are an utter idiot" and I don't. Yes, I know that I do sometimes, but most of the time I don't. If I were to say what I really felt in all situations with the virtue or prudence, wow, I do not know what would happen.

If deception is always a lie, then these sorts of deceptions, like make-up, wearing flattering clothing, etc., are lies.

Unabashed and naked absolute truth without any cushion and in all situations would probably cause us all to hate each other.

Anyway, it is an interesting question and issue. All we can say for sure is what the Church says. The rest must come from the prudent guidance of an informed conscience.

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason."

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

2492 Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

Also see the Catholic Encyclopedia on Lying

God bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary