You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor – A Reflection on the 8th Commandment

The Eighth Commandment proclaims the splendor and the beauty of the truth. It is not often that we hear of the truth described in this way, but consider how precious and essential a foundation the truth is for our lives.

Without the truth there can be no trust, and without trust there can be no relationships with others. Without the truth there is cynicism, fear, and an atmosphere of exclusion and secrecy. Without the truth, lives are ruined or lost by error and falsehood. Without the truth, countless men, women and children are misled by deceitful and destructive philosophies that sow confusion and error.

Jesus declared just how important and essential the truth is by describing it as the fundamental purpose of his saving mission: For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. (John 18:37). Jesus also taught, If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (Jn 8:31)

Dedication to the truth – The first implication of the eighth commandment flows from the importance and essential nature of the truth. The Catechism teaches:

Christians must be dedicated to the truth and live according to it. The Old Testament attests that God is the source of all truth. His Word is truth. His Law is truth. His “faithfulness endures to all generations.”[Ps 119:90; Prov 8:7; 2 Sam 7:28; Ps 119:142] Since God is “true,” the members of his people are called to live in the truth. (Catechism 2465) To follow Jesus is to live in “the Spirit of truth,” whom the Father sends in his name and who leads “into all the truth.”[Jn 16:13] To his disciples Jesus teaches the unconditional love of truth: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes or No.'”[Mt 5:37] (CCC # 2466).

Witness to the truth – Not only are to be dedicated to the truth and to love it, we are to witness to it by word and deed. This is particularly the case with the truth of our faith, the truth which has set us free. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation. (CCC # 2472).

Since the eighth commandment upholds the goodness and beauty of the truth we must avoid all sins against the truth. There are numerous ways that the truth is undermined. It will be fruitful for us to consider them each in turn.

I. False Witness – Scripture says, A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a war club, or a sword, or a sharp arrow. (Proverbs 25:18) Nothing can be so injurious to individuals as to harm their good name or reputation. Without a good reputation it becomes difficult for an individual to successfully relate to and interact with others whether it be for business or merely at a personal level. Clearly, to bear false witness against someone is to harm their reputation and we are forbidden to do so.

In the the most technical sense, false witness is something which takes place in a court of law and, since it is under oath, is also called perjury. But it is also often the case that false witness is given in daily matters through lies, half truths, exaggeration, and the like. Clearly our call to love the truth and to respect the reputation of others forbids us engaging in such activities.

Respect for the reputation of others also forbids us from:

A: Rash judgment (assuming without sufficient foundation the moral fault of a neighbor),
B: Detraction (disclosing another’s faults and failings without a valid reason to others who did not know them)

C: Calumny (imputing false defects to another with the knowledge that they are false).

II. Flattery – Yet it is also possible to offend the truth by inappropriately praising others or by refusing to correct them when it is proper to do so. Flattery distorts the truth when it falsely attributes certain good qualities or talents to another. This is usually done to ingratiate oneself to individuals or for some other ulterior motive(s). Such behavior becomes particularly sinful when it confirms another in malicious acts or sinful conduct.

III. Lying – A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving…Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. 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…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.” [Jn 8:44]….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…A lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision…Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust…and tears apart the fabric of social relationships. (Catechism 2482-2485)

Acts of lying are sins from which we must repent. Lying is also a sin that demands reparation. That is to say, since lying causes actual harm and real damage. These damages must be repaired. The actual truth must be made known to those who deserve to know it. The reputations of others which have been harmed by the lie must also be restored.

Is lying always so evil? – 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. (Catechism 2484). Thus there are big lies and smaller ones. Nevertheless, it is always wrong to intentionally lie. This includes so called “polite lies.” For example suppose a phone call comes in for someone in the household who has indicated a preference not to be disturbed just now. It is a lie to say, “She is not here.” Yet one could say, “She is not available now.” Other social situations are less simple! For example, if Mrs. Smith asks you, “Do you like my new hairstyle?” Suppose you do not. It is in fact wrong to say, “Yes, I like it.” Granted, we all feel a bit stuck in such situations! Perhaps we could answer truthfully but discreetly and say, “You look alright.” (Presuming that we do think so). But wouldn’t it be nice if we actually felt secure enough, either to indicate charitably our true feelings, or to indicate our preference not to answer the question? Wouldn’t it be even better if our relationships with others were so based in sincerity and truth that people both gave and expected honest answers? It is to this blessed state that the Lord points when he says, Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (Mt 5:37).

IV. What about secrets? This reflection has thus far emphasized the goodness and the splendor of the truth as well as the importance of communicating that truth to others who need it. However, the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional..fraternal love…requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. 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…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 (Catechism 2488, 2489, 2492).

However, the fact that we are permitted, even obliged, to keep certain secrets and maintain discretion, does not mean that we are free to lie. For example we cannot say, “I don’t know anything about that.” Neither can we make up false answers to requested information. When we must decline to give information that is properly to be kept secret we must still remain truthful. We might say instead, “I am not free to discuss this matter with you now.” Or, “It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.” Or, “Why don’t you ask him yourself?” Occasionally we may need to be more direct and say, “This is a private matter and not for you to know.”

Thus secrecy and discretion are often proper. Here too however, absolutes must be avoided. Sometimes we are asked to keep secrets that we should not keep. For example, suppose someone confides in you that they intend to commit a serious crime, or bring harm to another? It would be wrong to keep such a secret. Other things being equal, secrets ought to 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. (Catechism 2491).

An exception to this is the seal of confession which may never be violated for any reason whatsoever: 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. (Catechism 2490).

Jesus has taught us that the truth will set us free (Jn 8:32). If this be the case then anything which distorts the truth leads to bondage. Thus the eighth commandment calls upon us to love the truth and to love one another by proclaiming the truth and witnessing to it in sincerity with mutual respect and love.

I couldn’t think of a video to post today, but then it struck me that there was something very honest about this video.

54 Replies to “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor – A Reflection on the 8th Commandment”

Dear Msgr Pope,
But how do we judge those who see truth when others are blind to truth? I believe that to some God gives the talent of seeing patterns which reveal truths which are not easily seen by others. And even the guilty are “proven” innocent when the patterns are not accepted as truth. Christ spoke the truth and was condemned – put to death even. The spiritually-blind could not see or accept the truth. So, what support can be given to those who see but who are condemned by the blind?

Well, it is a reversal of perceptions to the ponit of view of the evil one. The evil one in authority claims “false witness” of a holy man (even though the holy man tells the truth, but the evil hides the truth) and the evil one convinces the world that the holy man is lying when, in fact, he is telling the truth. With God, the holy man does not sin, but under the government of the evil one, the holy man is punished for the false crime of bearing false witness when, in fact, he is telling the truth. I know this is complicated – apologies. 🙂

I suspect you could do a whole series of posts on confession, Msgr.; for now, could you shed light on whether the “seal” applies only to those who genuinely confess – and receive absolution – or anyone who enters into confession, irrespective of whether absolution is granted. There are some countries that wish to strip many professional settings (if we can include the confessional in that) of the right to privacy if a person admits to a crime.

My layman’s understanding: The seal is inviolable even if someone entering is full of baloney. The only wiggle room is over whether such-and-such entered into confession; but that is a stretch under what I call the Everyone-Knows-What-Their-Chosen-Act-Is rule. If the priests understands he is in a confessional setting, he is bound. There was some noise from the Irish government about criminalizing the withholding of crimes confessed in the Sacrament from the secular authorities, but I don’t think it got much past the sabre-rattling phase. In the unlikely event that such happened, priests would have no choice but to disregard the law under consciencious objection and take whatever consequences come with that.

Msgr.
Can you comment on Equivocation and Mental Reservation? St. Alphonsus Liguori taught these are morally acceptable, but they have always seemed at root dishonest to me. Is there an official Church teaching here?

I too am skeptical of these concepts, especially given the damage the Jesuits often did with them. I am more of the school that a lie is an intentional falsiloquium – that is the deceptive speech intends to mislead what ever is going on the mind. It seems a little game of pretend to me to speak of mental reservation.

But sometimes it is a (sort of) game! But one that means no harm, and does no harm! For example one of the deacons at my church often preaches the homily, and honestly I really find him amazingly dull. However, it is likely that others like his style (there is, after all no accounting for taste) for he is often asked to preach, and I see lots of little old ladies running up to him afterwards to say how much they enjoyed his sermon. So, while I do not volunteer my opinion, if I am asked what I thought of a sermon I thought boring, pablum, my usual response is to give a wide eyes smile and to say “He was a veritable Sampson!” This has the benefit of ending the conversation, as my questioner usually goes off, trying to figure that one out 🙂 What I mean of course is “I have been slain with the jawbone of an ass!” But you can’t say that in church. Or shouldn’t perhaps, for it is a sin against charity which would seem a greater sin than the sin against truth involved. (Not to mention being much less fun).

Where does gossip fit in? Gossip that is true, so not lying per se. Not sure if it’s false witness either, since it’s often not false. I know a lot of women, including myself, struggle with gossip. On the hairstyle example, I can’t see myself saying the truth in that situation. Maybe something like “It must feel great to have a fresh style.” I think a better choice is for people not to ask questions like that.

Msgr. Pope, I like this post, but I would offer one slight thought. You say that it is a lie to say “She is not here,” but not “She is not available.” However, a rather old high school Catholic religion text I used to own made the point that saying “She is not here,” or “She is not at home,” has the accepted social meaning of “She is not at home right now to visitors/callers” and thus was fine for those who needed to use those phrases (which back in the day that textbook was written included personal secretaries and domestic servants). In other words, because people (at least in that day) understood “She is not here” to mean a) she is not physically here, b) she is not available to speak to you right at this moment, or c) she is not at home to any callers, it was okay to use the simple shortcut phrase “She is not here,” when one’s employer preferred it as the most polite form of refusal. I suppose we could discuss whether or not “She is not here” still has that same accepted social meaning, and thus whether it is appropriate to use it these days. But I think that it is a good example of an idiomatic English expression that does not always mean exactly what the literal words say–and that those who are unusually scrupulous about such idioms should double-check with a confessor as to whether they may be used. There are many such idioms, especially in business–the “He is in/will be in a meeting” expression comes to mind as another example, which can mean anything from what it literally says (e.g., that the person is actually attending a meeting of several people for a fixed time) to a simple expression of unavailability (e.g., the person expects to be busy talking to only one other person for only a few minutes, but needs to keep his schedule open until that happens). The point, I think, is that these idiomatic expressions do not ordinarily intend to deceive, as it is expected that those hearing them will understand their range of possible meanings.

Perhaps, but why not just say, “She is not available” ?? I accept that there are idioms as you say, such as saying “I’m fine” when you really are not. I am not sure the phone example is such a case and would generally not wish to expand the notion of idioms too easily.

Msgr. Pope, I think that there are circumstances in which “She is not here,” with the understood *possible* meaning of “…to callers…” is allowable and in which “She is not available,” might be less helpful. Maybe I can illustrate. The problem with “She’s not available,” is that it is often taken to mean, “She is here, physically present, but doesn’t want to see/speak to you right now, either because she is busy, or can’t be bothered, or because she doesn’t like you or doesn’t wish to speak to you, or because you’re a low priority as far as she’s concerned.” I suppose you could argue that it’s the only polite way to say that someone doesn’t wish to see/speak to someone else without having to give them unnecessary detail about why, but is it any more true than “She is not here?” After all, “Not available” means that the person is unavailable to come to the phone or see the caller, right? But what if technically she is not really unavailable–that is, she’s just as available technically for caller A as she is for caller B, in that she’s not any more busy or tied up when A calls as when B does? However, she has said that she must see caller A today (especially in a business setting) but caller B is a salesman who wastes her time and she will put him off as long as possible. So isn’t saying “She’s not available” to caller B just as much of a “lie” as saying “She’s not here (for you right now)?” What I’m trying to say here is that “She’s not available” is also an idiom (and one which is probably more confusing to non-native English speakers than “She’s not here,” which is also something to consider). It could mean that she’s present but busy, it could mean that she’s present but not busy but not interested in seeing or speaking to callers or to a certain caller, it could mean that she’s present for a few more seconds but then heading to a meeting, etc. But a boss who tells her secretary, “I’m not here from two to five this afternoon,” doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll be physically absent during the entirety of that time, any more than a boss who tells her secretary, “I’m not available from two to five this afternoon,” means that she’ll be so busy that whole time that she can’t come to the phone. That’s one reason why the phrase “out of the office” has been so prevalent lately in business settings; “I’m not here,” might mean I’m just not taking calls, but “I’m out of the office,” means I’m not coming in to work at all during the specified time, or am working offsite or from home, etc.

Fr. Pope, This is topical now because the group LiveAction is performing undercover exposes on Planned Parenthood. Some are arguing that what LiveAction is doing is wrong even gravely wrong, and I am persuaded by their arguments except, but one thing bothers me. In John 7, It seems to me that Christ himself went “undercover”, deceived the disciples about his intentions and went to the festival in Jerusalem. Of course, Christ knew what was really happening there without going, but was he acting in an incarnational way as an example of how it is permitted to go “undercover”? I’m conflicted. It seems that Christ clearly deceived his disciples. He said he wasn’t going “to this feast” and then went anyway in secret. Others have tried to explain this scripture to me, but I’ve not been satisfied by it. It seems like there’s a clear message here that it is OK to deceive people in the service of secret undercover investigations.

Well, I don’t like to be asked to call something good, just because good things may result. I am not going to say “Lying is good.” However, I am not that convinced that what they are doing is a serious lie given the circumstances and context. But I won’t call lying or misrepresenting oneself “good.” As for your example of John 7 it is difficult to say what Jesus did exactly since he may simply have changed his mind. I’d rather not draw too many conclusions given the uncertainty of the details.

Msgr. you said: “Is lying always so evil? – 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. (Catechism 2484). Thus there are big lies and smaller ones. Nevertheless, it is always wrong to intentionally lie.” Yet Scripture includes a number of occasions where God’s holy people did lie, and were not condemned. The midwives when ordered to kill the baby boys of the Hebrews told Pharoah “Oh Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women. They are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” Abraham, afraid that Pharoah would kill him if he knew that he was Sarah’s husband, passed her off as a sister. However God did not punish Abraham for this “lie”. God punished Pharoah for setting up a system that required an honest man to lie. And most difficult for me of all. Jesus’ story of the “dishonest steward.” The steward was going to be fired for incompetance or whatever, but went out made friends with all his masters debtors, forgiving their debts (which he had no right to do) and thus obtaining the hope of being able to ask them for favors once he got fired. Yet his master praised him. The way I read that passage “make friends for yourself with unrighteous mammon” is that wealth is meant to be stored up in the “bosoms of the poor, the houses of widows and the mouths of children.” (I think that is a quote from Ambrose). When the system is corrupt, the rules change. Or do they? Because Jesus also said that not a word of the Law could be taken away, and that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

That scripture reports an event does not mean it is necessarily told with approval. In some cases scripture is just happened. The lack of punishment is little more than an argument from silence. I like you have probably escaped punishment from God from things I have done. This does not denote approval from God. That the midwives fear the Lord does not mean they do everything right. My only point here is to say that we need not conclude approval for every detail. If they did tell a lie (as it seems from the story), given the context and circumstances, it may have been wrong, but not seriously wrong. In the case of the dishonest steward, Jesus is not praising dishonesty but using irony to illustrate that the wicked are more ingenious in dealing with the world than the saints in dealing with the kingdom.

I know of at least 2 examples that seem to allow lying under certain circumstances. The first: when the Hebrew midwives were commanded by Pharoah to kill all newborn baby boys, and the midwives disobey and lie. “Exo 1:19 – 21 – The Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they themselves are skilful in the office of a midwife; and they are delivered before we come to them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and grew exceedingly strong. And because the midwives feared God, he built them houses” The 2nd example is when Rahab hid Joshua’s spies and lied to Jericho’s soldiers. God certainly blessed Rahab for this act, such that she would be in the Davidic line of Christ. Would you explore these 2 passages and help me to understand how they fit in the context of the 8th commandment?

I addressed the one above. As for Rehab, I would say something similar, in that I think the scriptures report what happened but don’t go much further as if to say lying is good. Here too, I won’t call what she did good, but given the circumstances, it wasn’t the worst thing in the world. There are big lies, little lies and statistics 🙂 Again my point would mainly be that we cannot always resolve everything and make everything fit. Sometimes people make the best of a bad situation and in doing so fall short of what is the best or right thing to do. It’s understandable and to some extent the human condition, just don’t ask be to call it good. It’s not good to lie, but sometimes people do it and their struggle is understandable. Some things are just best left unresolved.

not to belabor my point, but you mentioned in the comment above (in your reply to Shari) that “This does not denote approval from God.” But the text I quoted directly from Scripture states plainly, “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and grew exceedingly strong. And because the midwives feared God, he built them houses”. That is not an implicit approval; it is an explicit one.

Well it is clear that God dealt well with them for not killing the babies. It is less clear that he dealt well with them specifically and per se for lying.