Mental Reservation When lying is permissible?

Tuvya T. Amsel

he pretest reached the question for- excessive body movement, sneaky and in- Tmulation phase. While discussing direct answers followed by an inaudible the comparison question the examinee, and unclear murmur continued all along a fresh graduate of a Jesuit Seminary of the comparison questions discussionI. It Theology, was asked: “Have you ever lied seemed like the examinee tries to over- in your life?”, “Never” came the answer come and fight his inner conflict in where with eye contact avoidance and hesita- in one hand he should tell the while tion. The examiner with somewhat teas- on the other hand to maintain a respect- ingly tone responded to that: “Never, ful and honest façade. The inner conflict ever, even not as a child?’. “Well… define itself was not exceptional; examiners face ” came the answer with an inaudible it daily, but rather the avoidance patterns and unclear murmur. “What was that?” which were consistent and seemed like asked the examiner but the answer never came. The pattern of breaking eye con- I Seems like this examinee never read the large body of research rejecting those cues as being indicative tact along with physical uneasiness and of .

The author is a private examiner in Israel, and a regular contributor to the publications of the American Polygraph Association. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the American Polygraph Association. Publishable comments and replies regarding this column can be sent to [email protected].

APA Magazine 2015, 48(3) 48 some kind of a systematic training, a type trine of mental reservation as a mean in of a mental counter measure….And in- where “…both justice and veracity can deed it was. be satisfied….”IV

“Mentalis Restricti” (Mental Restric- The doctrine was first introduced in 1235 tion a.k.a Mental Reservation) by St. Raymund of Pennafort, a Spaniard professor of Cannon Law when Raymond The ninth verse of the Ten Command- published the Summa Casuum of which ments II“Thou shalt not bear false witness several editions appeared in the sixteenth against thy neighbor” is one of the fun- and seventeenth centuriesV . damental directives in the Judeo-Chris- tian morale code. Lying is forbidden and “ … I believe, as at present advised, according to the Catholic teaching it is that when one is asked by murderers considered as an evil. And evil cannot bent on taking the life of someone even be exercised in order to save human. hiding in the house whether he is Yet, there are some unique situations or in, no answer should be given; and as SlaterIII (1911) explains: if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to “… However, we are also under an the other’s silence. Or he may use obligation to keep secrets faithful- an equivocal expression, and say ly, and sometimes the easiest way ‘He is not at home,’ or something of fulfilling that duty is to say what like that. And this can be defend- is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all ed by a great number of instances creeds …, both ancient and mod- found in the Old Testament. Or he ern, have frankly accepted this po- may say simply that he is not there, sition. They admit the doctrine of and if his conscience tells him that the lie of necessity, and maintain he ought to say that, then he will that when there is a conflict be- not speak against his conscience, tween justice and veracity it is jus- nor will he sin …” tice that should prevail…” “ … Such expressions as “He is not To resolve the conflict the common at home” were called equivocations, Catholic teaching established the doc- or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them II Exodus 20:16, The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, Ministry of Good News IV Ibid, Slater (1911) Publishers (2001). V O’Kane, M. (1911). St. Raymond of Peñafort. III Slater, T. (1911). Mental Reservation. In The In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Rob- Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton ert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 12, 2015 Company. Retrieved April 3, 2015 from New Ad- from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/ vent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm cathen/12671c.htm 49 APA Magazine 2015, 48(3) their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase “He is not at home” was re- stricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, “He is not at home for you, or to see you.” Hence equivo- cations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or res- ervations. It was commonly admit-

ted that an equivocal expression © Fotolia LLC /vgstudio need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circum- stances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about without the intention of marrying her sins made known to him in confes- and later denying saying it in court is sion, he should answer “I do not considered to be a lie or perjury or a sin? know,” and such words as those Navarrus answered that the man neither when used by a priest mean “I do lied, nor committed perjury, nor any sin not know apart from confession,” whatever, on the supposition that he had VII or “I do not know as man,” or “I a good reason for answering as he did . have no knowledge of the matter Navarrus held that mental reservation in- which I can communicate…”VI volved “expressed partly in speech and partly in the mind,” relying upon the The doctrine of strict mental reserva- idea that God hears what is in one’s mind tion (stricte mentalis) while human beings hear only what one speaks. Therefore the Christian’s moral In the sixteenth century mental reserva- duty was to tell the truth to God. Reserv- tion doctrine mounted into its next stage ing some of that truth from the ears of when Martin Aspilcueta (a.k.a “Doctor human hearers was moral if it served a Navarrus,”) another Spaniard professor greater good. A user of the doctrine could of Cannon Law coined the strict men- reply “I know not” aloud to a human and tal reservation doctrine when consulted “to tell you” silently to God, and still be whether a statement given by a person telling the truth. to a woman “I take thee for my wife” Modern implementation

VI Ibid, Slater (1911) VII Ibid, Slater (1911) APA Magazine 2015, 48(3) 50 an ambiguous expression realizing that In spite of the fact that the concept of the person who you are talking to will ac- mental reservation has never been includ- cept an untrue version of whatever it may ed in Canon Law nor was it officially ap- be…”X proved by the Catholic Church authority it has been debated in years past by the For the sake of equality the view on lying scholars of the law and of moral theolo- of the other two monotheistic religions gyVIII . However it seems that the practi- should be described as well: cal implementation of the doctrine is still practiced. According to the Irish Gov- In addition to the ninth commandments, ernment “Commission to Inquire into the Old Testament (Torah) guide that Child AbuseIX” (a.k.a The Ryan Report) “Thou shall not steal, thou shall not deny published in 2009 the Roman Catholic falsely, and thou shall not lie one to an- archbishops in Dublin obsessively cov- other”XI and “Distance yourself from a ered up widespread sexual abuse of chil- false matter”XII . Yet, in the Talmud which dren by priests until the mid-1990s. One is a collection of Jewish law and tradition priest admitted abusing more than 100 as interpreted by ancient scholars, there children. Another said he had abused are several circumstances where one is children every two weeks for more than permitted or sometimes required to lieXIII 25 years. All archbishops in charge over : the 1975-2004 period covered by the in- quiry were aware of some complaints and • Lying to preserve the cause of peace, the archdiocese was pre-occupied with not to hurt another person’s feelings, protecting the reputation of the Church or to provide comfort. over and above protecting children’s wel- fare. It said the Church was “obsessive- • Lying in a situation where honesty ly” concerned with secrecy and operated might cause oneself or another person a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” about harm. abuse. Cardinal the • Lying for the sake of modesty or in or- former Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of Ireland, who made misleading X Roddy, M., In abuse by Irish priests, a little “men- statements in connection with clerical sex tal reservation”, Reuters US Edition, http://blogs. abuse is quoted of saying “…There may reuters.com /faithworld/2009/11/29/in-abuse-by- irish-priests-a-little-mental-reservation/ be circumstances in which you can use XI Ibid, the Holy Bible, Leviticus 19:11 VIII Doyle, T.P, (2006), The Doctrine of mental XII Ibid, The Holy Bible, Exodus 23:7 Reservation, www.awrsipe.com/Doyle/2006/2006- XIII Friedman, H.H., & Weisel, A.C, (2003), Should 11-19-Doyle-Mental_reservation.pdf Moral Individuals Ever Lie? Insights from Jewish IX Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, www. Law, Jewish Law Articles, http://www.jlaw.com/Arti- childabusecommission.com/rpt/ cles/hf_LyingPermissible.html

51 APA Magazine 2015, 48(3) der not to appear arrogant. • To make the unbelievers realize the truth of Islam. • Lying for the sake of decency, i.e., not telling the truth about intimate mat- The potential risk ters. Polygraph examiners meet on a daily basis • Lying to protect one’s property from examinees which belong to one of these scoundrels. dominations, nevertheless if the examinee is orthodox or secular the prohibition to Following the Jewish and Christian foot- lie along with the permission to lie is part steps, Islam takes a similar stand. While of her/his heritage which are well root- the Quran prohibit the followers of ly- ed into her/his DNA, which in return ing: “…And do not conceal testimony, means that in some instances the examin- for whoever conceals it – his heart is in- ee will have no remorse upon lying. Will deed sinful….”XIV and “And do not mix that affect her/his psychophysiological the truth with falsehood or conceal the responses and reduce them? The leading truth while you know [it].”XV However, theories which explain the responses dis- the Hadith which is a collection of teach- regard guilt or remorse as an influencing ing attributed to Muhammad one may factor in the psychophysiological arous- choose not to tell the truth whenXVI: al process but some researcher theorize that guilt does produce deception cues. • A Muslim’s life is in danger if he speaks Ekman and Frank (1993)XVII “Decep- the truth to a non-believer. tion Guilt” refer to the guilty feelings of the liar either because of the act commit- • To promote harmony between spous- ted or by the act of denying it or both. es. The “Deception Guilt” can produce very mild to strong deception cuesXVIII. So in • While making peace between two those instances in where the examinee quarrelling Muslim parties, so that is convinced by the necessity of lying as it would not escalate into something grounded in her/his domination we may worse the mediator in such case may face a non-responsive examinee. Such falsely speak. should be defined as a mental counter- measure and managed by the examiner as XIV Quran 2:283, http://quran.com/2 such. XV Ibid, Quran 2:42, XVI Sahih Muslim, Chapter 25: Forbiddance of XVII Ekman, P., & Frank, M.G., (1993), “ That telling a lie and the cases in which telling of lie is Fail,” in Lying and Deception in Everyday Life, New permissible, Book 032, Number 6303: http://d1.is- York, NY: Guilford Press; US, 190. lamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Sahih_ Muslim.pdf XVIII Ibid, Ekman & Frank, 191.

APA Magazine 2015, 48(3) 52