Not so long ago, in a fraternal sharing among priests, the question of
truth and honesty arose. It was generally agreed that in the church there is
far too much hypocrisy and false diplomacy. But when we tried to define correct
and practical principles in matters of truth, opinions varied greatly.
There were those who maintained that truth should be pursued at all costs. They pointed to the example of Gandhi. In his autobiography Gandhi is sincere to the point of even revealing unfavorable details about himself that he could easily have passed over in silence. He often proclaimed that truth and honesty were absolute values for him. Truth was the last and most important norm of everything. In fact, he stated bluntly: “For me, Truth is God and God is Truth.”
On the other hand, quite a few participants pointed out that being truthful may hurt people and do more damage than good. They pleaded for a wise diplomacy which would try to do justice to the needs of people. A number of interesting cases were brought forward which, I believe, illustrate the problem in question. I will report them here as they were presented by different priests.
I am a member of the financial board of our diocese. Lately it has come to our notice that a fund specially established for helping poor children is being used for another purpose, namely, for building a catechist training school. Since the money was given exclusively for the purpose of helping poor children, diverting it in this way is obviously an abuse. Now the delicacy of the matter lies in the fact that the bishop himself made the decision to re-allocate the funds. When we tried to point out that it was a mistake, he reacted angrily. My problem is: Should I keep insisting on the bishop reimbursing the money for the original purpose, or should I let the matter pass so as not to antagonize him? If I am too awkward in this particular matter, I may upset my relationship with him and in that way block my opportunities of serving the diocese better in the future.
--------------------
In my parish a particular lady whom I shall call Mrs. X wanted to start an association for helping unwed mothers. It was a good idea, but I know that Mrs. X would not be acceptable to quite a few other women in the parish on account of previous frictions. So, tactfully, I suggested that another person, Mrs. Y, should be drawn in so that the two could become official sponsors. I did not want to tell Mrs. X the real reason because it would upset her and perhaps cause her to drop the project, so I had to invent another reason to make my suggestion plausible. I feel that this type of diplomacy is often called for in pastora1 work.
---------------------
Some years ago there was an assistant in my parish who now works elsewhere in the diocese. My parishioners often ask me how he is doing. I know for a fact that he is not doing well. He has come up against the bishop on a number of issues and, to speak frankly, I would not be surprised if one of these days he decides to quit. But when people ask me how he is doing, I give an evasive answer. I don’t think it is their right to know the full truth. I believe I have to protect that young priest’s good name. In such a case I am convinced it would be a mistake to reveal the full truth
------------------------
Should we tell the truth at all times? Is truth the ultimate and only value? Should everything else be sacrificed for its sake? These are not easy questions to answer, especially because quick answers can easily condone hypocrisy and unjustified diplomatic behavior. I decided to search scripture for an answer. What I came up with was quite startling: I found out that God himself did not always tell the truth!
This may seem a bold assertion. Yet a study of the Old Testament reveals that God allowed lots of half-truths and mistaken notions to exist for a long time. Take, for example, the question of vengeance. The New Testament states quite categorically that vengeance should be left to God, that it is unworthy of a person who believes in God.
“You have heard that it was said: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too” (Mt 5:38-39).
If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good. Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody. Never take revenge, my friends, but instead let God’s anger do it. For the scripture says, “I will take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord.” Instead, as the scripture says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for by doing this you will make him burn with shame.” Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good (Rom 12:17-21).
This, therefore, is the truth of the matter; that we should not take revenge. But how to reconcile this truth with the attitude prescribed in the Old Testament against the people of Amalek? Because they had wronged the people of Israel in the past, God enjoins vengeance in the future:
“Remember what the Amalekites did to you as you were coming from Egypt. They had no fear of God, and so they attacked you from the rear when you were tired and exhausted, and killed all who were straggling behind. So then, when the LORD your God has given you the land and made you safe from all your enemies who live around you, be sure to kill all the Amalekites, so that no one will remember them any longer. Do not forget!” (Dt 25:17-19).
This revenge was executed, we read, under King Saul. God told him through Samuel:
“Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys” (l Sm 15:3).
When King Saul spared Agag, the king of the Amalekites, Samuel himself completed the job: “He cut Agag to pieces in front of the altar in Gilgal” (l Sm 15:33). Commentators produce extenuating circumstances here: The people of Israel needed to be protected from the evil influences of mixing with pagan nations; the Amalekites deserved punishment; God has the right to give life and to take it. But the fact remains that a cruel massacre is justified as an act of vengeance. When these scripture passages were inspired, people were convinced that God tolerated vengeance and that it was an attitude that could be justified in certain cases, to say the least. ln other words, God allowed them to have a very imperfect notion about himself and about the attitude he expects from people.
It is only gradually that the mistaken attitude toward vengeance was recognized in the Old Testament. For many, many centuries God tolerated Israelite belief in a doctrine that was only partially true. It was only with the coming of Jesus that God’s true mind was made known.
Examples of this kind could be multiplied. To me they illustrate that the complete truth was not the most important value for God. He tolerated imperfection in people’s beliefs and morals because he was engaged in a process of education. He knew that eventually he would correct their wrong notions. He wanted the fullness of truth to be gradually revealed, not to impose it at a time when the people were not prepared for it. Since truth is such an important element in inspiration, this realization has momentous implications. It shows us where God’s priorities lie.
I would say that people were more important to God than absolute truth. When he called them to become his chosen people, he knew that they were simple nomads with primitive morals. He realized that they could not fathom the depths of his revelation and the full extent of his expectations of them. He was content to accept from them a partial faith and a limited moral ideal. He even tolerated that the oracles they spoke in his name manifested only part of his mind. For instance, when the prophet spoke about the condemnation of Amalek, he expressed correctly that God was indignant about the crime committed by Amalek. However, what was stated regarding the duty of ruthless revenge reflected primitive nomadic practice rather than God’s intent. The marvel is that God tolerated such imperfect faith and low moral ideal. It shows that God took his people seriously.
There is a perfect parallel to this in the gospels. Jesus, too, did not reveal the full truth about his own person and his mission all at once. In the beginning we find that he purposely speaks in images and parables people can understand. He even forbids those who suspect his divine origin to speak of it to others. This was a deliberate policy. At the Last Supper Jesus says:
“I have used figures of speech to tell you these things. But the time will come when I will not use figures of speech, but will speak to you plainly about the Father” (Jn 16:25).
As in the Old Testament, therefore, Jesus tolerates many misunderstandings and imperfect notions about himself as a necessary element in his plan of gradual education. Apparently half-truths did not upset him as long as they gradually led to the full realization of who he was and what he came to do.
An incident related in the Gospel of St. John is also intriguing. It concerns Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem to take part in the festival of shelters:
The time for the Festival of Shelters was near, so Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave this place and go to Judea, so that your followers will see the things that you are doing....,
Jesus said to them, “You go on to the festival. I am not going to this festival, because the right time has not come for me." He said this and then stayed on in Galilee.
After his brothers had gone to the festival, Jesus also went; however, he did not go openly, but secretly (Jn 7:2-10).
Jesus’ relatives obviously had mischief in mind. Tempestuous Galileans as they were, they wanted Jesus to make a show of his entry into Jerusalem, possibly to stir up trouble for political purposes. Jesus had to disentangle himself from them. He did not want his mission to get marred by such political ambitions. That is why he gave them a diplomatic answer. It may be that his relatives understood Jesus’ statement to be a polite refusal, but the fact remains that he states clearly: “I am not going to this festival.” What Jesus was really saying could be translated in straightforward language as: “My going up to Jerusalem will be according to my own norms. You have no right to interfere with what pertains only to me.” In other words, through a diplomatic reply Jesus was protecting his own integrity.
Studying scripture we may then draw the conclusion that truth, if we mean by truth stating bluntly the complete and unmitigated facts, is not treated as the highest priority or the ultimate value. For the sake of gradually preparing people to accept the fullness of revelation, God tolerated the teaching of half-truths. Also, diplomacy may be rightly employed when protecting one’s own integrity. In these cases we see that concern for the welfare of the person is the reason why bluntness of speech is avoided. The good of the person ranks higher than blunt speech.
When we define truth merely as a bluntness in delivering facts, we may conclude that truthfulness is not important. But truthfulness is more basic than that - and very important. Again, it is useful to listen to the scriptures. In Deuteronomy we read that the most important duty of a prophet is to be faithful to the truth (Dt 18:20-22). Jesus himself came to proclaim a message of truth. His loyalty to honesty and truth was the deepest cause of the opposition he met from the Pharisees. After telling them that they were children of the devil, Jesus said:
“When he [the Devil] tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies. But I tell the truth, and that is why you do not believe me,” (.Jn 8:44-45)
Jesus was to die for the truth:
“I was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth. Whoever belongs to the truth listens to me” (Jn 18:37).
It is because Jesus proclaimed the truth boldly and fearlessly that he became a threat to the Jewish leaders.
It is a matter of life and death in our own times to stress again the need for honesty and truthfulness in the way we proclaim the gospel. False diplomacy and hypocrisy are counter to the gospel of truth we serve. How are the people to believe we are ministers of him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life if they discover falsehoods and lies in our talk? How will our words about God be believed if we are clever and if our words are filled with subterfuges? How will our message of salvation be credible if in our daily speech we are seen to be less than truthful and straightforward?
This truthfulness should extend to more than our speech. It should be part of our very life. Jesus was disgusted with the Pharisees precisely because they were like whitewashed tombs “which look fine on the outside but are full of bones and decaying corpses on the inside“ (Mt 23:27). He rejected acts of piety that were just done for outward performance: making a big show of giving alms; praying on the street corners standing up with outstretched hands; putting on a sad face when fasting. He wanted us to be exactly what we appear to be, to make our words be in harmony with what we are.
If we are truthful, we will not be afraid to admit making mistakes. This may refer to shortcomings or faults of our own, but it may also pertain to faults committed by the church in the past. Official documents usually start with a long history that enumerates all the great things and good decisions taken by the church in the past. What is sadly omitted is a frank acknowledgment of matters that were neglected, decisions that were taken too late, insights which the church learned from outsiders, mistakes that needed to be corrected. Similarly, when we give instruction on matters pertaining to faith or morals, we serve Christ better by honestly admitting faults and shortcomings in the past than by glossing over them in a spirit of misguided diplomacy. The truth will be known anyway. How will people trust us in what we teach now if we do not even have the basic humility and honesty to admit mistakes committed in the past?
It is interesting that the reason we should be honest and truthful turns out to be identical with the reason we should use diplomacy in certain cases; that is, the ultimate justification for both is concern for others and protection of our own integrity. Truth stands in service of love. God’s revelation of truth is meant to lead us to a living bond with him in love.The truth we reflect on and believe in is meant to enkindle in us the response of love.
This is also the message in that supreme example of honesty and truthfulness found in the Old Testament, the witness of Eleazar. In the persecution of Antiochus, orthodox Jews were forced to renounce their beliefs by sinning against Mosaic law. Eleazar was put under pressure to eat pork. When he steadfastly refused, the torturers suggested - out of consideration for his old age - that he be given some other meat so that he could pretend to have eaten pork. In that way Eleazar could save his life and, they thought, assuage his conscience. But he replied:
“Such deception is not worthy of a man of my years. Many young people would think that I had denied my faith after I was ninety years old. If I pretended to eat this meat, just to live a little longer, it would bring shame and disgace on me and lead many young people astray“ (2 Mc 6:24-25)
Eleazar died rather than act untruthfully. But notice tbat tbe reason for his truthfulness was first and foremost his concern for others, for people. His worry was that tbe young might be misled making them think that conformity to pagan practice was all rigbt. Tbe ultimate reason for Eleazar’s death was his love of otber people. Eating pork or not eating pork was a secondary question.
We know from later salvation history that the prohibition on “unclean“ food was only temporary. It ceased when Christ came. It was due to the Jewish concept of the world rather than to a revelation on God’s part. God tolerated the distinction between clean and unclean foods; it was not his absolute prescription. Yet Eleazar died for a worthwhile cause because he strengthened his younger co-religionists. He was a martyr of truth who died out love. Does not this description also fit Jesus?