| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Carol
Squire
USA
469 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2009 : 9:36:00 PM
|
My daughter recently asked me a question I wasn't sure how to answer:
Certain professionals (such as private detectives, police officers, government agents and special ops military personnel) are sometimes required to go undercover in order to gather evidence against criminals.
In the line of duty they may have to use a fictitious identity, lie, or otherwise break God's laws to sucessfully blend in with the criminal element or complete their assignments.
I know that we may not sin even to bring about a good or desirable outcome. But someone would really stick out if they were trying to infiltrate a crime ring and they behaved with Christian morals, gentleness, and kindness.
Would such a line of work be morally permissible for a Christian?
Thanks! |
Carol |
|
|
Bro. Ignatius Mary
Director SPCDC
USA
2318 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 1:50:06 PM
|
Carol:
I guess no one is going to attempt an answer to this one 
That leaves me to answer, which I will do later. The answer to this is a little involved so I need to have clear head and not be tired to write it. I will post hopefully within the next couple of days.
|
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+
Servant of the Servants of the Cross of Christ
 
|
 |
|
|
Loli
Page
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 3:41:25 PM
|
I'll give it a shot and see how Brother rates my answer. 
There are two separate things here: One is the act and the other is the culpability of the person performing the act. A sin is a sin; however, the amount of guilt that a person has because of the sin -- his culpability -- may vary depending on the circumstances. For example, let's say a person stole a loaf of bread to feed his family. Stealing is a sin. No matter what the reason, the person in our example did commit the act of stealing -- a sinful act. That's clear. However, the person's culpability, the level of guilt, for the sin may be reduced or even eliminated altogether because of the circumstances. This is why the Church determined that several factors must be present in order for a person to be guilty of committing a mortal sin: The act must constitute grave (serious) matter, and it must be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. If any of the three factors is missing, or is not fully met, the sin may go from being a mortal sin to being a venial sin, and the person's culpability for the sin may be reduced.
Your example is similar to the question of killing in war. How culpable the individual soldiers are depends on a variety of circumstances, including the state of mind and intent of the soldier. Some soldiers may kill out of a lust for blood; others, only when they must defend their own lives. There is a very wide spectrum between those two extremes, and the culpability of the soldier varies accordingly. The Catechism says we are to work to avoid war; however, it recognizes that in some cases, governments must go to war in self-defense.
There are some acts that are intrinsically evil, such as abortion. Even within such an act, however, there may be some factors that mitigate culpability to a certain extent. If a woman is forced by her husband/boyfriend/parents to have an abortion, her culpability is minimized and may even be completely eliminated; if a woman is fooled into killing her pre-born child, never having had the intent to abort, then her culpability is also mitigated. Her state of mind may be such that she is unable to make decisions responsibly; that too, would mitigate her culpability.
In your example, the undercover police officer may be lying (a sinful act); however, his culpability is probably mitigated if his intent isn't to deceive for its own sake, or even for his own sake, but rather to protect or to save his life, the lives of other officers, or the public.
Essentially, these extreme examples cannot really be covered in general terms -- they need to be closely evaluated, with all facts out in the open. Hypotheticals never work, because the ultimate answer depends on all the facts and those change from one instance to another. Even if you and I were to engage in a very stringent examination of conscience for a hypothetical wherein you supplied all the answers, ultimately the determinations would apply only to this hypothetical and its set of hypothetical "facts." It couldn't really be used to gauge other situations because each has its own unique circumstances. |
Loli |
|
|
|
Bro. Ignatius Mary
Director SPCDC
USA
2318 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 4:42:16 PM
|
Loli:
Very good narrative on the doctrine of "diminished capacity", but the answer lies in different direction.
|
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+
Servant of the Servants of the Cross of Christ
|
|
|
|
Carol
Squire
USA
469 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 12:41:55 PM
|
Thank you, Loli, for giving it a shot (and it was a good one), and I appreciate your willingness to tackle this tough one, Brother.
No hurry, and thanks for your help! |
Carol |
|
|
|
candeo
Inquirer
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2009 : 2:17:14 PM
|
I am curious, and eager for Brother Ignatius to answer.
Not having quite the courage or wits to tackle this one, I will only ask, is this a situation in which the principle of double effect would need to be applied on a case-by-case basis? |
Avila |
|
|
|
Bro. Ignatius Mary
Director SPCDC
USA
2318 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 02:51:29 AM
|
Dear Carol:
The answer to your question is remarkably complicated. It deals with two primary issues:
1) the fundamental precept that "the ends do not justify the means", that is, "we may not do evil that good may come".
2) the theory of "mental reservation". This second concept is rather involved.
We may not do evil that good may come
The first concept to consider is that fundamental precept that "the ends do not justify the means", that is, "we may not do evil that good may come".
This precept is derived from a number of sources. One source is what St. Paul tells us in Romans 3:8: "And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying."
The Navarre Bible Commentary explains this well:
quote:
St. Paul's adversaries accuse him of having said that evil had to be committed for good, that is, God's truth and justice, to be made manifest. But this is a misrepresentation, which the Apostle energetically rejects, although he does not stop here to reply to his accusers.
St. Paul is not saying that a Christian should follow evil ways for a good end: that would be to blur the difference between good and evil, and to argue that the ends justifies the means.
Christian moral teaching requires that one do right even if oneself or others are hurt by that action: the ends does not justify the means and an action can only be fully good with all its elements are good -- object, end and circumstances; and it will be bad if any one of these elements is bad. Therefore, no morally bad action may be done for any reason, even for an apparently good reason, or even with a supposedly good intention. If one were to act using wrong standards, it would mean undermining the laws and mores of society (cf. St. Augustine, Contra mendacium, chaps 1 and 7).
Faced with people's constant tendency to justify their actions by appealing to circumstances, the Magisterium of the Church has reminded us of the basic principles of moral behaviour: "God desires us always to have, above all, an upright intention, but that is not enough. He also requires that the action be a good action [...]. It is not permissible to do evil in order to achieve a good end" (Pius XIII, Address, 18 April 1952).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "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."
NEXT INSTALLMENT: the theory of "mental reservation"
|
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+
Servant of the Servants of the Cross of Christ
|
|
|
|
Bro. Ignatius Mary
Director SPCDC
USA
2318 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 02:57:14 AM
|
How Does Mental Reservation Apply?
A mental reservation is a deception that does not actually tell an untruth. There are two kinds of Mental Reservation:
1) Strict Mental Reservation
2) Wide Mental Reservation
Strict Mental Reservation:
The Doctrine of Strict Mental Reservation was condemned by Pope Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 (propositions 26, 27). After this condemnation by the Holy See no Catholic theologian has defended the lawfulness of strict mental reservations.
Strict Mental Reservations are statements in which the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact.
For example, a scoundrel may say to a woman, "I will take you as my wife," but then add in his mind, "when hell freezes over."
The words he actually said to the woman, plus the words he said privately in his mind, together constitute a true statement -- that he has no intention of marrying this woman. But, the words he did say to the woman, taken by itself, constitutes an outright lie. He has no intention of marrying the woman and does intend to lie to her about it.
President Clinton used strict mental reservation when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." We know that Clinton re-defined sexual relations as that only of sexual intercourse. Since he did not have sexual intercourse with "that woman" he "told the truth", to his mind, when he made that statement. In other words, he just plain lied.
Wide Mental Reservation:
The Doctrine of Wide Mental Reservation, (also called the Doctrine of Equivocation) is permissible if the circumstances require it. The doctrine of equivocation essentially means one can give an equivocal (double-meaning or evasive) answer in order to protect a secret.
This equivocation cannot be a deliberate lie (such as the case of Clinton), nor an intention to deliberately inspire a false interpretation over a true one.
Even in the classic scenario where we are trying to defend a legitimately kept secret from the Nazis that Jews are hiding in the house, St. Augustine taught that the plain truth must be told regardless of the consequences. According to St. Augustine in such instance as the Nazi example we may say that we know where the Jews are, but will not tell, but we may not outright deny that the Jews are in the house.
The Scholastic St. Raymund of Pennafort, writing c. 1250, expands on this scenario. First, he says that you (the owner of the house) should say nothing if possible; and if this is not possible, then you may use equivocation, that is, an expression with a double or ambiguous meaning. St. Raymond cites Jacob, Esau, Abraham, Jehu, and the Archangel Gabriel as having made use of equivocations.
The quote from St. Pennafort: quote:
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.
A less extreme scenerio is when we get a phone call from someone we do not wish to talk to. Often we will tell our spouse or even our kids to lie for us and say we are not home. Saying, "he is not at home" to the caller, when in fact the person is at home is an unnecessary lie. Instead we can say, "he is not available right now". This is not a lie but an equivocation that means, "he is not available FOR YOU." This is a true statement even though the "whole" truth was not revealed to the caller in order to avoid unnecessarily hurting the caller's feelings.
Thus, returning to the more serious scenario of the Nazis, if silence will betray the presence of the Jews, one may equivocate and say, "There are no Jews here" with the meaning that there are no Jews here FOR THE NAZIS.
This equivocation, wide mental reservation, is not to be used lightly, however. We sin if we use wide mental reservation without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth.
The nature of the equivocation must also match the scenario: to say "there are no Jews here" when they actually are may be appropriate because it will save their lives. To say that "dad is not home" when he is home does not threaten his life and thus a lessor equivocation is appropriate ("he is not available").
Does this help with your question?
|
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+
Servant of the Servants of the Cross of Christ
|
|
|
|
rgravlz
Squire
USA
248 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 6:38:24 PM
|
| Another approach to the Nazi Scenario is to say that the Nazis are not entitled to this information as they intend to do evil. One answer a minister smuggling Bibles to the former Soviet Union, when asked his profession, instead of saying minister, he said quoting a scripture about the ministry of teaching, answered that he was a teacher, of course, since he came to teach the gospel and the border guards let him through. |
God Bless
Bob. |
|
|
|
Carol
Squire
USA
469 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2009 : 02:07:31 AM
|
Brother, thank you for tackling this tough one. Whatever would you do without me to make your life more complicated?
The principles you explained are indeed complicated but they address some issues I have always wondered about. Applying them to real life situations seems potentially tricky.
I have only known a few people who worked in an undercover, law enforcement capacity, but from what I have observed many government agencies seem to operate under the assumption that the end does justify the means so long as no civil or criminal laws are broken. There seems to be a lot of accepted "grey areas" in undercover work.
But when it comes to God's laws, it seems to me that moral theologians have already addressed pretty much every area of controversy regarding the nature of sin. It doesn't sound like there are many shades of grey in Catholic teaching.
Would you mind telling me if you think I am on the right track in applying these principles to a specific example?
Here is my scenario: An undercover, female vice officer wearing a wire dresses in civilian clothes and stands on a street corner frequented by prostitutes. Other officers are hidden nearby to arrest subjects who solicit the officer for prostitution.
The vice officer hopes to lure potential "johns" into the trap and make arrests by posing as a prostitute.
If she wears sleazy clothing then I would say she has crossed a moral line that she shouldn't. But let's say she is just wearing casual clothing (as is standard procedure) and says something along the line of, "Hey baby, are you looking for a date?" when a john pulls up in his car to speak to her.
Throughout the conversation, according to standard police procedure, she never actually offers sexual favors for money, but instead says she will go on a date with him for a certain period of time for a set amount of money. The john verbally agrees to hire her for her services, and the conversation gets recorded for use in prosecution. The accompanying officers move in for the arrest.
The john has made assumptions that the officer is a prostitute based on where she is hanging out, what sort of "business like" demeanor she seems to have, and on things she didn't actually say, even if he believed that she implied such things. For all he knows, she could have innocent intentions (I know, that's a bit of a stretch.)
Technically, she has the right to hang out at whatever street corner she wants to so long as she doesn't try to tempt men with sleazy dress, talk and gestures. If he assumes that she is a prostitute, then he is actually making something of a rash judgment about her.
The question becomes whether she has a legitimate need to use the doctrine of equivocation in letting the deception play out to obvious conclusion (his obvious conclusion.)
I'm going to guess that rather than her trying to deliberately inspire a false interpretation of events, she is basically letting him reach his own conclusions and carry out his own nasty agenda. She is placing herself where she might be available to hear and secretly record his criminal solicitation.
Am I on the right track here by saying she isn't technically lying about anything, even though she does hope to deceive? I would say that the officers have a valid, necessary secret to keep. They are conducting the operation to get criminals off the street and discourage further crime.
Thank you for your patience and help, Brother. I hope you are feeling better and had a nice, relaxing weekend.
Carol
|
Carol |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
