Truth, lying seen at center of scandal

The subject of lying has become a focal point in the allegations of misconduct leveled against President Clinton.

The President has repeatedly denied having had sexual relations with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and has denied allegations that he asked her to lie under oath. Meanwhile, Ms. Lewinsky is reported to have said on audiotapes that she lied while giving a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

As investigators search for the truth, three experts in moral theology and canon law spoke to The Evangelist about lying and what it means to the President, Ms. Lewinsky and the American people.

Obligations

According to Catholic moral theology, the experts said, the President may not be obligated to answer questions from the media about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

"Traditional Catholic moral theology [holds that] you're obliged to tell the truth when the person has the right to the knowledge," said Rev. Frank Winters, SJ, associate professor of ethics and foreign policy at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Therefore, "if a newspaper asks about your sex life, you can lie with moral impunity."

Todd Whitmore, associate professor of Christian ethics at the University of Notre Dame, explained that President Clinton has two spheres of influence: his "family public sphere" and his "political public sphere."

While "you could have failings in one without affecting the other," he said, "there are a couple of things for me that raise questions about his judgment. One would be the [alleged] adultery itself; the other, the fact that [Lewinsky] is someone very much his junior in age and power. It's not only adultery, but an abuse of power. Presuming all of this is true, that for me does carry over sphere to sphere," making the President's private life a legitimate public concern.

Rev. Peter Sullivan, a canon lawyer with the diocesan Tribunal, told The Evangelist that he is still debating whether it would be acceptable for President Clinton to withhold the truth about his alleged affair.

"The Church says -- even in one of its canons -- that you have the right to privacy," Father Sullivan said. "On the other hand, I would presume that many people vote for people in public office because they're ethical and morally upright. If a person is lying, in that instance, it does have some bearing."

Oaths of truth

Whether the President lied under oath or asked Ms. Lewinsky to do so is another matter, the experts said. Even though lying in civil cases is rarely prosecuted, "I don't think lying is acceptable, period," Father Sullivan stated. "In the New Testament, it says when you say yes, you mean yes, and when you say no, you mean no. No matter what kind of court it is, when you're sworn in to tell the truth, you have put your whole integrity on that."

"As far as I know, you can't lie under oath," Father Winters agreed. If the President lied to a grand jury [in the Jones case] and asked Ms. Lewinsky to do so as well, he said, "it would be called suborning perjury. That's a legal question and a constitutional question."

From a moral standpoint, said Mr. Whitmore, lying under oath even in a civil case is simply unacceptable. He used an example from his time as a counselor for juvenile delinquents: "They say that whatever they do is okay as long as they don't get caught. That's a rather impoverished description of the moral life."

Consequences

President Clinton has made such statements as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and "I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth." If similar statements were made under oath and are proven false, said the experts, the consequences for the President could be severe.

"Since he's the President of the United States," said Father Winters, "the consequences [for perjury] might go as far as impeachment."

"A lot would have to depend on how the truth was surfaced," stated Mr. Whitmore. "Should he resign, should he be impeached -- I don't know. Just how the truth got disclosed and what the President's immediate reaction to that was would make a big difference for me."

President Clinton's definition of the term "sexual relations" could mean the difference between his believing he was telling the truth or not, Father Sullivan believes, asking: "What did he mean when he said, `I did not have sexual relations'? His definition could be different than someone else's."

However, he added, if the President did perjure himself, "that person is so untrustworthy that I'd want to impeach him. Outside of that, people have the right to privacy, and I'd say to leave him alone."

(Editor's note: Insights into Church teaching on truth and lying can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2464-2492.)

Detraction: Another offense against truth

By KATE BLAIN
Assistant Editor

The experts interviewed by The Evangelist disagreed on whether Monica Lewinsky would be guilty of detraction for having spoken to her friend Linda Tripp about her alleged relationship with President Clinton. Ms. Tripp secretly taped the conversations, which led to the allegations against the President.

Father Winters believes that Ms. Lewinsky would be guilty, on the basis that "Ms. Tripp has no right to knowledge of Clinton's sex life."

Motives needed

However, "when you get into things like detraction, you have to know people's motives," said Father Sullivan. "There's a difference [between detraction and simply sharing information] when you're involved in it, because she's as much talking about herself as she is the President. But one could fairly ask the question: 'Why did she share that?'"

To practice detraction, Father Sullivan said, Ms. Lewinsky would have to have intended to "tear down" the President. But "I don't know if we're ever going to know all the answers."

The key phrase in the definition of detraction, said Mr. Whitmore, is "objectively valid reason. Lewinsky was sort of looking at Tripp as a senior confidante. Confidante is a major role. It's too difficult for a person to bear all of life upon oneself, so we go to a person who can help us gain insight. In Catholicism, we have spiritual directors and Confession....An objectively valid reason could be that Lewinsky was looking to Tripp as a senior confidante of sorts."

If Ms. Lewinsky saw Ms. Tripp as someone she could confide in and did not realize that Ms. Tripp had other motives for gaining information about the President, he said, Ms. Lewinsky would not be guilty of detraction.

Public opinion

Even those who have already decided on President Clinton's innocence or guilt may be guilty of violating the truth.

Judging the President before all the facts are in is "not fair," stated Father Sullivan, noting: "A person has a right to their day in court."

But Father Winters saw making judgments about people's actions as "part of the way you live," something that people do every day.

Two levels

According to Mr. Whitmore, the answer to whether those who judge the President violate the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.

"On a legal level, you do have to hold off till all the evidence is in," he stated. "On the other hand, when complaints surface repeatedly over a series of time, a person can't be faulted for having grave judgments about the President's story, being skeptical given that there's repeated allegations."

People should "neither be saying, `He's utterly innocent until he's proven guilty in a court of law,' or `I know he's guilty,'" Mr. Whitmore said.

(02-12-98) [[In-content Ad]]