B
BPD1586
Guest
So true…I’ve seen that first hand.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Please look at a correct quoting of CCC 2483 from www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM: (emphasis added)
This quite clearly indicates that speaking a falsehood in order to mislead someone who has no moral right to the truth (such as the Nazis looking for Jews) is not a lie. It is not a mortal sin. It is not a venial sin. It is no kind of sin. In fact, speaking the truth in such a situation would be a grave sin, since you would be materially cooperating with an evil.
S
smichhertz
Guest
That’s bizarre. You are correct, “right to know” is still in the online version. But it’s removed in the 1997 printed version, why is it still on the online version?
Now I’m totally confused.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Okay this is weird.
When I click your link it takes me to the Vatican homepage. I then click my way to the CCC and then find the link for the eighth commandment and click that and I see that the 2483 STILL HAS the “right to know”.
But get this, when I search for 2483, I then get it with it removed:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
I’m pretty sure in the 1997 edition of the CCC “right to know” was removed, but that’s very bizzare that the website still has it up.
So now i’m completely confused. Any guidance here from some people with more knowledge would be appreciated.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
I have to agree with this. A great aspect of Catholicism is that it is the most common sensical of all Christian faiths. It is not restricted to a sentence in the Bible. It explains the meaining of revelation and the Magisterium puts it in its proper context. To say that one must tell the truth to a murderer searching for his victims is a very fundamentalist interpretation.
When you consider the absolute fear a German family would experience at this moment when the Gestapo pounds on their door with their machine guns pointed at them and ordering them to reveal the whereabouts of an innocent Jewish family whom they plan to murder…this could not be even a venial sin. To sin you have to have know it is a sin, have full knowledge of what you are doing, and carry it out. In the aforementioned scenario they would certainly have no culpability of such iniquity since they feel they would be doing an act of love for their brothers in Christ and the fear they are experiencing at that moment.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, I see what you mean. There are two different versions of the Catechism on the Vatican website. I can’t tell which one is current. But even in the version that has “right to know” removed from 2483, it does have it in 2489. Maybe they decided at some point that having it explained in one place was good enough, and it did not need to be repeated? I too would like to know what is going on.
T
thistle
Guest
That is simply not true. The Church does not teach it is okay to lie in certain circumstances and what you quote does not say that.
Lying is always a sin. It is simply a matter of culpability.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I did not say it is okay to lie. Read my posting again. I said that speaking a falsehood was okay in those circumstances. And CCC 2483 does define a lie in such a way that the situation I cited was not a lie. It is withholding the truth from someone who has no right to that truth. In fact, if you read 2488 to 2492 you will find more explanations of when telling the truth is wrong.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Didn’t Pope Pius protect and hide Jews? Was he doing so in the hope that if confronted by the Gestapo that they wouldn’t ask him any questions? Wouldn’t he tell them that nobody is here? Or would he have said, “Yes, I hid them in the closet?” No, I don’t believe that all lying is a sin, there must be some commen sense exceptions as I have explicated in my posts.
N
Newbie2
Guest
In some ways, yes.
I worked for a guy once and was on a commission. I made far more money than he expected, and as such, he made more money than he expected. However, he did not renew my contract after my 3rd years, as “associates should not make that much money without having some risk of ownership”. HUH???
Anyway, I was looking for another job as I had a mortgage and a pregnant wife, but nothing was available…so I filed for unemployment with the confidence that I would find a job in my profession, but if not, after a couple months, I’d take anything to keep working while I kept looking for something in my profession.
Of course, after about 2 months, the Almighty presented me with an “offer I couldn’t refuse”.
But I noticed that my former employer had put as the reason for my termination “Failure in job performance”. Man, was I PO’d. I take great pride in my professional work, and to have some buttsteak lie about my work was VERY hard to take. However, it had no bearing on my next employment, as I got to be an equal partner in the practice right from the get-go.
Anyway, it’s best to be honest, even if you put it in simple terms for a new prospective employer, “we didn’t get along”. Believe me, most employers will appreciate honesty over attempts to skirt around the truth.
Well, this is a different question than in the OP, but the Nazis have no right to the information that they are asking; prospective employers do. Reading between the lines of the Nazi’s question, what they really are asking is “Are there any Jews here…that we can arrest, incarcerate and kill?” Of course, the last part is unsaid, but understood.
The honest answer is "No…there are no Jews here (that you can arrest, incarcerate and kill). If they were complete in their question, you would be obligated to be complete in your answer.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Excellent!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The OP’s situation does not resemble Nazi Germany. (Hopefully, things will not get that dramatic.) However, regarding “the right to know,” the “need to know,” etc:
It’s actually considered pretty gauche of employers these days to ask directly the circumstances of one’s leaving one’s position. There are a number of legal and practical reasons for this, even before the economic belly-up which excised wholescale so many jobs of excellent performers. For one thing, very often even troublesome “firings” based on something political, or personality differences, or even just poor performance, are now called “layoffs” instead of “termination for cause.” The employer often prefers to describe the ex-employee as “phased out.”
Second, at least in my State (I don’t know about all states) there are actually specific guidelines, and sometimes outright regulation about what an ex-employer “can say.” Depending on the profession one has been engaged in, sometimes even an employer who wishes to rave about a candidate, is allowed only to confirm that the employer worked there, in such-and-such position, for such-and-such dates, and now no longer does. I think that’s way too paranoid (litgiously-motivated), but that’s sometimes the way things work. (The legislation was prompted by high-profile and low-profile lawsuits of character defamation, etc.)
Third, an At-Will State makes terminations a frequent and even neutral occurrence. For example, several years ago I was working part-time in my field, requested to be moved to full-time (as was customary at the end of the year for employees who wished that), and instead was laid off. Why? My performance was not an issue. Rather, they wanted to pay (full-time) benefits to only a critical mass of employees, so that they could keep their profit. I think it was clear that I needed F/T work for survival, so they assumed I would quit rather than accept P/T, and they had their quota of F/T’ers. They laid me off “at-will” (requiring no justification.) This especially happens if the employee has performed well, not badly. Why? Then there is clear opportunity to “reward” the employee with a clean label of “lay-off,” which provides them immediate access to Unemployment Compensation.
When you add those three factors to a volatile economy which has displaced outstanding workers due merely to plummeting revenue, potential employers would be wasting a lot of time investigating who to “blame” (you, the employer, another co-worker, the economy) for your termination. It has resulted in most interviewers not even inquiring any more as to “why you left your last job.” However, in those cases, most accept the answer, “I decided I needed to move on.” Or, “I felt I would have more opportunity in a different kind of environment, so I am only looking at companies where I have the opportunity to grow.” Hidden in those answers could be, additionally, the fact that you and your boss did not see eye to eye and thus he did not want you to grow. (Personality conflict.) But again, it’s now understood that “the boss is not always right.” (There have lots and lots of high-profile outright firings in many industries, for decades. Sometimes the person doing the firing was a jerk.)
Finally, often the interviewer can get an idea by asking careful, probing questions during the interview, as to whether this employee is competent. That’s the key, because competent employees do get fired (and laid-off). One asks relevant questions about the field, to see if the candidate knows what he or she is talking about, and probes as to specific experience. As to personality differences with a previous employer, or political troubles, that, too, tends to become apparent in an interview, without asking questions about the past. When I interview combative, uncooperative, or suspicious candidates (who are being asked non-incendiary questions), and their resume shows a checkered and highly mobile job history, I can put 2 and 2 together. In no case have I needed to resort to calling a former employer to ascertain such information.
In the 21st century here, were I to encounter an inappropriate interviewer – one without a sense of discretion and professoinalism, someone who treated me (for example) like a prison inmate, I would know that enviornment would not be the job for me. There have been several occasions in past job searches where I have had really lousy interviewers. If someone is asking a question to “test” or “trap” the candidate, that’s a big sign that the interviewer and/or the superior is a sadist. (Or paranoid.) I don’t want to work with socially or emotionally dysfunctional people, especially in subordinate positions to them. When, for example, an employer advertises a part-time job, and then opens the interview suspiciously with, “Why are you applying for a part-time job?”, then i.m.o. it’s the employer (or interviewer) who has the problem, not the responder. It shows terrible decision-making, terrible tactlessness, and cluelessness as to protocol.
Ditto for “why are you out of work?” (Look around you, lady: You might want to read a headline or two.
)
I have never lied on a resume. It is an extremely bad idea, because as one poster pointed out, there’s a strong chance that the lie will be discovered. Also, honesty charms potential employers, because it’s a sign you’ll be honesto on the job.
It’s actually considered pretty gauche of employers these days to ask directly the circumstances of one’s leaving one’s position. There are a number of legal and practical reasons for this, even before the economic belly-up which excised wholescale so many jobs of excellent performers. For one thing, very often even troublesome “firings” based on something political, or personality differences, or even just poor performance, are now called “layoffs” instead of “termination for cause.” The employer often prefers to describe the ex-employee as “phased out.”
Second, at least in my State (I don’t know about all states) there are actually specific guidelines, and sometimes outright regulation about what an ex-employer “can say.” Depending on the profession one has been engaged in, sometimes even an employer who wishes to rave about a candidate, is allowed only to confirm that the employer worked there, in such-and-such position, for such-and-such dates, and now no longer does. I think that’s way too paranoid (litgiously-motivated), but that’s sometimes the way things work. (The legislation was prompted by high-profile and low-profile lawsuits of character defamation, etc.)
Third, an At-Will State makes terminations a frequent and even neutral occurrence. For example, several years ago I was working part-time in my field, requested to be moved to full-time (as was customary at the end of the year for employees who wished that), and instead was laid off. Why? My performance was not an issue. Rather, they wanted to pay (full-time) benefits to only a critical mass of employees, so that they could keep their profit. I think it was clear that I needed F/T work for survival, so they assumed I would quit rather than accept P/T, and they had their quota of F/T’ers. They laid me off “at-will” (requiring no justification.) This especially happens if the employee has performed well, not badly. Why? Then there is clear opportunity to “reward” the employee with a clean label of “lay-off,” which provides them immediate access to Unemployment Compensation.
When you add those three factors to a volatile economy which has displaced outstanding workers due merely to plummeting revenue, potential employers would be wasting a lot of time investigating who to “blame” (you, the employer, another co-worker, the economy) for your termination. It has resulted in most interviewers not even inquiring any more as to “why you left your last job.” However, in those cases, most accept the answer, “I decided I needed to move on.” Or, “I felt I would have more opportunity in a different kind of environment, so I am only looking at companies where I have the opportunity to grow.” Hidden in those answers could be, additionally, the fact that you and your boss did not see eye to eye and thus he did not want you to grow. (Personality conflict.) But again, it’s now understood that “the boss is not always right.” (There have lots and lots of high-profile outright firings in many industries, for decades. Sometimes the person doing the firing was a jerk.)
Finally, often the interviewer can get an idea by asking careful, probing questions during the interview, as to whether this employee is competent. That’s the key, because competent employees do get fired (and laid-off). One asks relevant questions about the field, to see if the candidate knows what he or she is talking about, and probes as to specific experience. As to personality differences with a previous employer, or political troubles, that, too, tends to become apparent in an interview, without asking questions about the past. When I interview combative, uncooperative, or suspicious candidates (who are being asked non-incendiary questions), and their resume shows a checkered and highly mobile job history, I can put 2 and 2 together. In no case have I needed to resort to calling a former employer to ascertain such information.
In the 21st century here, were I to encounter an inappropriate interviewer – one without a sense of discretion and professoinalism, someone who treated me (for example) like a prison inmate, I would know that enviornment would not be the job for me. There have been several occasions in past job searches where I have had really lousy interviewers. If someone is asking a question to “test” or “trap” the candidate, that’s a big sign that the interviewer and/or the superior is a sadist. (Or paranoid.) I don’t want to work with socially or emotionally dysfunctional people, especially in subordinate positions to them. When, for example, an employer advertises a part-time job, and then opens the interview suspiciously with, “Why are you applying for a part-time job?”, then i.m.o. it’s the employer (or interviewer) who has the problem, not the responder. It shows terrible decision-making, terrible tactlessness, and cluelessness as to protocol.
Ditto for “why are you out of work?” (Look around you, lady: You might want to read a headline or two.
)I have never lied on a resume. It is an extremely bad idea, because as one poster pointed out, there’s a strong chance that the lie will be discovered. Also, honesty charms potential employers, because it’s a sign you’ll be honesto on the job.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Back to my original situation for a moment. I was asked to “resign for personal reasons”. I would have been terminated had I not agreed to sign a letter stating such. My boss said I did a great job for him and that he has no complaints. He said he would give me a good reference.
On the application under “reasons for leaving” would it be okay to enter “resigned for personal reasons” since that is the official reason according to my boss and to which I agreed? Or do I have to say, “I resigned for personal reasons but the what really happened was …”?
On the application under “reasons for leaving” would it be okay to enter “resigned for personal reasons” since that is the official reason according to my boss and to which I agreed? Or do I have to say, “I resigned for personal reasons but the what really happened was …”?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. briefer (Option #1) is better, again for all the reasons I previously stated. Not necessary, and not even desired by the potential new boss, actually. It’s very good news that he has agreed to give you a good reference. I often (btw) offer such a fact at or before an interview. I am rarely terminated, but, like other people, I have suffered from the contraction of the economy. If my boss mentions that he’ll give a good reference (or when I get an actual paper letter of recommendation) I mention that in job applications and internet cover letters for resumes. That way the prospective employer knows he can call you on it (but rarely does!).
Also, in your case it is not inaccurate to say that you have ended your assignment 'but that you left on good terms with your employer." If it were bad terms, he would not mention a “good reference.”
Good luck!
F
FNDRB58
Guest
I understand your advice from a practical, secular viewpoint. What I need to know is what is sinful? I should give some details of the incident that caused my “resignation”.
I am an unarmed security officer who got into a physical altercation with a trespasser who goated me into an argument (my fault for losing my temper a bit). He approached me in a threatening manner by getting into my face and cussing at me. I felt threatened to a degree and took action to protect myself. I pulled him to the ground and put him into a control hold until he calmed down, then I let him up. No one was injured. The guy left then had his lawyer call my boss and threatened to sue…for battery I guess. My boss would not back me up and said that it would have been proper to have just called the police instead of getting into an argument with the guy. I agree with this but did not think my actions warranted a firing as I felt I was protecting myself. He said he would not spend a few hundred thousand in the hopes that he would win the case. His lawyer suggested we part ways to avoid a lawsuit.
My boss told me he would give me a good reference as he felt I did a very good job during my employment. He offered me the opportunity to sign a resignation letter which officially stated “resigned for personal reasons”. So If I put this down as my reason for leaving, would this be considered lying because its not the real reason but is indeed the “official” reason with the agreement of my employer?
Now if I am further asked about what personal reasons then I would certainly be truthful and explain what happened.
I am an unarmed security officer who got into a physical altercation with a trespasser who goated me into an argument (my fault for losing my temper a bit). He approached me in a threatening manner by getting into my face and cussing at me. I felt threatened to a degree and took action to protect myself. I pulled him to the ground and put him into a control hold until he calmed down, then I let him up. No one was injured. The guy left then had his lawyer call my boss and threatened to sue…for battery I guess. My boss would not back me up and said that it would have been proper to have just called the police instead of getting into an argument with the guy. I agree with this but did not think my actions warranted a firing as I felt I was protecting myself. He said he would not spend a few hundred thousand in the hopes that he would win the case. His lawyer suggested we part ways to avoid a lawsuit.
My boss told me he would give me a good reference as he felt I did a very good job during my employment. He offered me the opportunity to sign a resignation letter which officially stated “resigned for personal reasons”. So If I put this down as my reason for leaving, would this be considered lying because its not the real reason but is indeed the “official” reason with the agreement of my employer?
Now if I am further asked about what personal reasons then I would certainly be truthful and explain what happened.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Well,the subtext here is that your boss got rid of you because you were potentially a legal liability for him (or rather, the incident was), and by getting rid of you, he was less of a target by an angry, litigious adversary. No, you are still not obliged to give details. Because, if your boss thought your actions were by themselves a firing offense, he would have fired you even absent threat of a lawsuit. While he also provided a teaching moment (which was good correction for the future as well), it was clearly the threat of lawsuit that caused your job to be a pawn in the chessboard here. Mostly, when bosses are disgusted with employees, they summarily fire them, with few words. They may say something blunt, but usually they want to limit contact and communication as much as possible. It’s part of the nature of firing. I’ve had to fire, too, due to breach of trust or repeated violations of procedure, and we would never give such an employee a good reference. (The best we would do is confirm, neutrally, that they had worked there.)
From a moral viewpoint, you are complying with your moral obligations because you are not contradicting the nature of your departure or the content of your boss’ words. It sounds from what you describe, that if there had merely been an unpleasant public incident without legal recriminations, your boss would not have fired you, but simply corrected you, even reprimanded you, and provided that teaching moment, but kept you on to ‘redeem yourself’ and show him you could improve. If anything, your boss, in his statements has given you a morally legitimate “out” in this instance; he is protecting you, although you have become the sacrificial lamb for his protection as well. The way to keep yourself from feeling that you having to conceal anything, or tell part of the story, is, if they question you, refer them to your boss for a more complete description. I believe he will repeat the same phrases to them as he did to you. Very doubtful that he’s going to go into details of the incident which precipitated this.
From a moral viewpoint, you are complying with your moral obligations because you are not contradicting the nature of your departure or the content of your boss’ words. It sounds from what you describe, that if there had merely been an unpleasant public incident without legal recriminations, your boss would not have fired you, but simply corrected you, even reprimanded you, and provided that teaching moment, but kept you on to ‘redeem yourself’ and show him you could improve. If anything, your boss, in his statements has given you a morally legitimate “out” in this instance; he is protecting you, although you have become the sacrificial lamb for his protection as well. The way to keep yourself from feeling that you having to conceal anything, or tell part of the story, is, if they question you, refer them to your boss for a more complete description. I believe he will repeat the same phrases to them as he did to you. Very doubtful that he’s going to go into details of the incident which precipitated this.
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
That depends to a large degree on the industry. In my industry, I’ve never seen a summary firing–even when skipping work for weeks, direct lies, or espionage was involved. Firing an educated employee in employee-friendly states risks lawsuits. In all but the worst cases, executives are offered a package to resign, and employees are put on probation. Yes, once the decision to fire is made, and a lawyer approves that enough documentation has been collected to back it up, the targetted employee is swiftly removed, sometimes without their possessions, to minimize the chance of retaliation and the effects of the incident on morale.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Thank you Elizabeth…I appreciate your insightful (name removed by moderator)ut. My boss was happy with my work and indeed would not have fired me had it not been for the threat of a lawsuit. Without a threat of a lawsuit I don’t think I would have even been given a write-up but instead just a counseling. In fact, when my boss was told by my shift supervisor about the incident he said that he wasn’t worried about it unless the police were called…which they weren’t. It wasn’t until several days later when he heard from the guy’s lawyer did he decide to take any action whatsoever.
The question then is, do I use the words, “Resigned for personal reasons” on my application and repeat it during my interview, since these were his words? If I do then this would solicit the obvious follow-up question, “What personal reasons?” It is here that I would have to back pedal and explain why I worded it this way and give the basic facts of what happened. I know how to truthfully explain the incident without going into detail.
The question then is, do I use the words, “Resigned for personal reasons” on my application and repeat it during my interview, since these were his words? If I do then this would solicit the obvious follow-up question, “What personal reasons?” It is here that I would have to back pedal and explain why I worded it this way and give the basic facts of what happened. I know how to truthfully explain the incident without going into detail.
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
The obvious answer: “I prefer to keep those reasons… personal”. Or, a bit more lengthy, “I prefer to keep my personal life personal, at least until we know each other better, but I’d be happy to discuss anything about my professional work as a security guard.” You don’t have any obligation to explain your personal reasons in a job interview. As someone who regularly hires people, if you used the right tone, I wouldn’t hold that against you.
Being honest simply means neither telling nor implying lies. It doesn’t require disclosing unfavorable information about one’s self.
For example:
Attorney: Did you steal anything from the company supply room?
Dumber, honest person: Yes, I took about dozen AA batteries and a few pens.
Smarter, honest person: I take the fifth. (legalese for “I’m not going to answer that question.”)
F
FNDRB58
Guest
We all know what taking the fifth is implying as we know what resignd for personal reasons most likely means. Would you see it better to explain that I was asked to resign because my boss feared a lawsuit even though I felt I was justfied by my actions - which shows honesty - or simply leave it for him to ponder by leaving it with personal reasons?
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Status