Dear Fred:

In a poem called Marmion by Sir Walter Scott we find the famous words, "Oh! what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive!"

The scenario you have presented is quite a tangled web. Even with creating names for the people involved, which I thank you for doing, the story still makes my head spin. I am reminded of the confusing old song, "I am my own grandpa."

There are some critical pieces of information missing, such as, "who is the mother?" and "why this lie was constructed in the first place?" I have known scenarios like this when the mother of the child is like 14 years old. The family fears a family scandal and sends away the pregnant teen to a grandparent's or uncle's house. Or a scenario similar to the one you have posted where the child is said to be a grandmother's, or some other relative's, again to avoid some family shame and scandal.

Not only is doing this foolish, such a lie is utterly unnecessary, if a lie can ever be necessary, and is usually a result of family pride (the worse possible motive and a motive that is sinful). Satan is the father of all lies (John 8:44).

There is absolutely no reason to hide who Sam's real father and mother are. Sam should have been told as an infant who her real parents are. She should have always seen her grandparents as her grandparents and her "brother" as the father that his is. This whole "tangled web" is a result of sin and is so completely unnecessary (baring knowing why this happened at all, but I cannot imagine any justified reason for it) that I have to shake my head in amazement.

As a result of this lie, this family secret, two families have been ripped apart — John and Dee's family and the family of Dee's second marriage, not to mention the effect upon Sam herself. And for what? To maintain a family secret that never needed to be kept in the first place?

My family held a secret for more than 40 years. I just found out about it two years ago. It caused a small tsunami in the family. Familial relationships have been damaged, but after a few months were mostly repaired, at least as far as I am concerned since I am Christian and believe in forgiveness (my bother is not Christian and has no such ethic).

Family secrets are nothing but destructive.

Obviously children should be told only as much as they can handle for their age, but should never be lied to. The Church teaches that:

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.

A child asking about where babies come from ought not to be told a lie that storks deliver babies, but neither should the child be told the fullness of truth that he is not ready for and cannot understand. We tell the child the truth at a level in which is age-appropriate. As the child grows and matures his understanding of reproduction can grow and mature with him; we can then reveal more of the full truth to the child. This is not a lie, this is the prudential discernment of revealing only that amount of truth that the child needs to know at the time.

But, in the scenario you present, there was never a reason given for the subterfuge in the first place, no reason not to present Sam's father as Sam's father from the moment of birth.

The Catechism says of lying:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

2483 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. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

In your story there is no mention of motivation for this lie. Here is what the Catechism says about intention:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself 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 (my emphasis).

The Bottomline: John, Dee, and the family sinned in lying to Sam and to Dee's second husband's son. Damage has been done to Sam and to all in the family as a result. There needs to be a healing in this family, a reconciliation, a forgiving of each other. This can be healed if everyone is willing to forgive. Forgiveness is required by Christ. If we fail to forgive each other we risk our very souls since Jesus said:

(Matthew 6:14-15) For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!"

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary