Why do we need this defined?  Isn’t a little wiggle room wiser, safer, and humbler for all of us?  Must the scrupulous deny the rest of us the use of a little common sense?

“I think it a rather large nose under the tent that Augustine allowed a man to lie who was threatened with homosexual rape. It is not hard to think that threat of other actions might also warrant lying, although neither Augustine or Aquinas thought so.”

A large nose, indeed. As to theologians getting busy, I think you had it right the first time around. There are conditions in the post-lapsarian world in which humans can put humans in untenable moral positions. I wish you had re-iterated that, here.

Retraction:
Augustine periodically found himself in need of making retractions because over time, he changed his views on some matters.  I need to make a retraction because I made a mistake.  I attributed a position to Augustine that was not his.  I claimed that he approved of telling a lie.  He did not.  He found lies for the purpose of avoiding homosexual rape the least of lies, but nonetheless a lie, and a sin.  I am sorry to have misrepresented his position and especially sorry if my having done so leads anyone into sin or error.

This is the quote in question:
“15. The whole stress, then, of this question comes to this; whether it be true universally that no sin of another, committed upon you, is to be imputed to you, if, being able to avoid it by a lighter sin of your own, you do it not; or whether there be an exception of all bodily defilement. No man says that a person is defiled by being murdered, or cast into prison, or bound in chains, or scourged, or afflicted with other tortures and pains, or proscribed and made to suffer most grievous losses even to utter nakedness, or stripped of honors, and subjected to great disgrace by reproaches of whatsoever kind; whatever of all these a man may have unjustly suffered, no man is so senseless as to say that he is thereby defiled. But if he have filth poured all over him, or poured into his mouth, or crammed into him, or if he be carnally used like a woman; then almost all men regard him with a feeling of horror, and they call him defiled and unclean. One must conclude then that the sins of others, be they what they may, those always excepted which defile him on whom they are committed, a man must not seek to avoid by sin of his own, either for himself or for any other, but rather he must put up with them, and suffer bravely; and if by no sins of his own he ought to avoid them, therefore not by a lie: but those which by being committed upon a man do make him unclean, these we are bound to avoid even by sinning ourselves; and for this reason those things are not to be called sins, which are done for the purpose of avoiding that uncleanness. For whatever is done, in consideration that the not doing it were just cause of blame, that thing is not sin. Upon the same principle, neither is that to be called uncleanness when there is no way of avoiding it; for even in that extremity he who suffers it has what he may do aright, namely, patiently bear what he cannot avoid. Now no man while acting aright can be defiled by any corporal contagion. For the unclean in the sight of God is every one who is unrighteous; clean therefore is every one who is righteous; if not in the sight of men, yet in the sight of God, Who judges without error. Nay, even in the act of suffering that defilement with power given of avoiding it, it is not by the mere contact that the man is defiled; but by the sin of refusing to avoid it when he might. For that would be no sin, whatever might be done for the avoiding of it. Whoever therefore, for the avoiding of it, shall tell a lie, sins not.”

That’s why your previous article is the more thoughtful one (the value of conscience in pre- vs post- lapsarian man). Of course, it may be that I misunderstood that article, as well.

The point, I thought, was this:
Lying is always intrinsically disordered. (No doubt - it’s in the catechism). You can play the “but it’s not a lie game because I’m going to invoke the intent to deceive card, and say that was not my primary intent.” That argument, although having some technical merit, is pretty shaky, though, because it seems to avoid any real definition of the word lie.

On the other hand, you can say that since the fall of Adam, humans can put other humans into situations where any action they take is, at face value, sinful. That is why I believe one can provide false signification to the Nazi at the door. You either lie, or actively participate in murder, and, make no mistake, silence would constitute active participation.

The Live Action case, I can’t really make a call on. I don’t know these people. I do know that my conscience, as it is currently informed, would not allow me to participate in that form of deception, as I believe there were truthful means of eliciting the same information.

Tom, Section 15 of De Mendacio is what got me in trouble.  There Augustine is just exploring a possible argument in behalf of some lies.  He puts forth his own position in sections 41 and 42.  There he holds to his strong condemnation of all lying for all purposes.                My article in First Things “Fig Leaves and Falsehoods” (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/fig-leaves-and-falsehoods)and this one have two different purposes. Here I try to make the case that the Church does not have a settled position on whether all falsehoods are lies. (I don’t think my error vitiates that claim thought it does invalidate one piece of evidence).                            In “Fig Leaves and Falsehoods” I try to make the argument that the Church should approve some falsehoods given the realities of a postlapsarian world, that I think it takes into account when permitting taking property that belongs to another in some circumstances and when permitting self defense in some circumstances. In those cases the Church is not consequentialist or practicing situation ethics; it does not say one can do evil because greater good results or one can do evil in some situations but it holds that one is not doing evil in those situations.  One is behaving justly; one is acting in accord with right order, with the purpose of property and the inviolability of life. I think those who tell falsehoods in some situations are not violating the purpose of language.                                        Again, I think not all falsehoods are lies, just as not all killing is murder or all taking of the property of others is stealing.

We’re in agreement - I just think this piece isn’t as strong as “Fig Leaves and Falsehoods,” for reasons I’ve already cited. By the way, I was referred to “Fig Leaves and Falsehoods” by Archbishop Carlson. Prior to that, I had been extremely troubled by the issue.

By the way, from de mendacio 42:

“There must be no lying of the third sort; because we are not to consult any man’s good to the injury of another. “

That would seem to be a self contradictory statement in the Nazi at the door scenario. The only way to interpret that one in light of Augustine’s conclusion is that the injury of the lie to the Nazi is more heinous than the injury perpetrated by the Nazi to the Jew. Is this a Latin translation issue? Also, does this say that Augustine says that we may, as men, make judgment about whether or not other men, who may not believe as we do (eg Jews), live or die? Leaving a human generated situation in “God’s hands” when God clearly did not will the situation (unless you believe that God wills evil, as in the Nazi at the door scenario), is participation in the evil of that situation. God did not will it, and you are, in effect, standing idly by, which Augustine also condemns. Something is amiss, here, and I don’t pretend to know the answer.

Can someone please shed some light on the phrase “large nose under the tent”? Googling it turns up Dr. Smith’s article as the first result(!), and googling the truncated “nose under the tent” brings up references to “Camel’s Nose”, which I suspect is related? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel’s_nose  Thanks to anyone who can help clarify, and thanks to Dr. Smith for the excellent article!

So you are now changing the definitions of falsehood and lies? Isn’t this more like liable and slander?
I have no problem with lying to defend your life, virtue, etc. If I published pictures of you with supposed prostitutes and pimps in a false context, would you accept that I was lying in defense of my principles? Or would you sue me and possibly take legal action?

Stop using your bible as an excuse to be a lying hypocrite.

“We tell lies when we are afraid… afraid of what we don’t know, afraid of what others will think, afraid of what will be found out about us. But every time we tell a lie, the thing that we fear grows stronger.”—Williams Tad

Sorry for the typo—I mean the situation is libel and slander. I seem to remember an old book that is very important to some people where the main character said people were not to bare false witness…

YOUCAT (Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church) corroborates Dr. Smith’s view that it is an open question whether it is necessarily a sin to tell a falsehood to someone who does not have a right to the truth. Question 452 asks:  “What does the Eighth Commandment require of us?”  The answer provided is:  “The Eighth Commandment teaches us not to lie.  Lying means consciously and intentionally speaking or acting against the truth.  Someone who lies deceives himself and misleads others who have a right to know the full truth of a matter….”

Sorry for typo:  In the first sentence the words should be “does not have a right to know the truth…”