Perhaps he felt that it isn’t something his pastor needs to know. We don’t need to go around telling everyone the complete truth all the time. The Church specifically teaches that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional” (CCC 2488). The Church also teaches that there are times when we are right to use “discreet language”, which seems to be what the OP has done here. So this may not be wrong here, even if his pastor got the wrong impression of exactly what happened, and even if the OP knew that he may get a distorted impression.
I don’t see any lie either, noting the above considerations.
Please review the Catchism regarding what I have said:
It is not the case that we are always entitled to the truth.
As I have said in a previous post a lie is when what you are thinking in your heart and mind do not match up to what you say with your words AND you are trying to lead another into error by not saying what you are thinking. If a person does not want another person to know about something because the matter is private, then silence or a mental reservation may be used – but a mental reservation is not a lie and does not involve saying what does not correspond with the 100% truth. Our OP must ask himself if what he said to his pastor did not reflect the actual truth of his heart and mind at the time he uttered his statement AND whether it was an attempt to lead his pastor into error so his pastor would not know the truth of his thoughts and heart at the time. Half-lies are lies and are not mental reservations *and I leave it to the OP to discern *if he spoke a half-lie – this is something I can not judge – only he can, he who knows just what was in his heart and mind at the time he said what he said and knows IF it was said for the purpose of leading another into error. I believe the OP should not have spoken a word about his girlfriend to his pastor if he did not want his pastor to worry about his sleeping in the same house – then he wouldn’t have this problem on his conscience. Usually when our conscience bothers us after saying something it could mean that we have compromised the truth in some way. You say the OP did not lie. I say, only that only he and God knows the recesses of his heart and whether he was trying to lead another into error. God bless you.Please review the Catchism regarding what I have said:
It is not the case that we are always entitled to the truth.
And “discreet language” (as I noted, and is noted in the catechism) is indeed an option when someone is not entitled to the truth, and is I believe equivalent to the older term “mental reservation”. I see nothing at all incorrect in what I said.
Note I am not advocating that the OP ought to lie. I just don’t see that he did (unless, as noted, their pastor has some right to the truth on this specific issue).
Not sure. Is it possible to define what you said as a true mental reservation (as opposed to a strict mental reservation which is a form of lying)?
But he didn’t tell a half-lie. What he said was true. It is not the whole truth, which is exactly what a mental reservation is…reserving some of the truth in one’s mind and only speaking what they think necessary/relevant.