Let’s not forget that the Council of Trent declared “Sacred and Canonical” the books of Sacred Scripture “as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition” to be received as such (i.e., Sacred and Canonical) for one to avoid the penalty of the anathema…
But if any one receive not, as Sacred and Canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
So, if there’s some question of translation between the New American and the Douay-Rheims…the Old and Vulgate Edition of Latin Scriptures ought to be consulted…“as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church.”
That is fine and good to quote the Catechism in reference to the use of discreet language, also, but…unless it is defined what discreet language is…we can’t very well put the information to much use.
There also is no example given to allow one to come up with a definition based on the use of the words “discreet language.”
So, basically, it is one of the many examples of vague use of language in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which makes it impossible to know for certain what the author of the Catechism is trying to convey.
To use this article in the Catechism (#2489) to promote the belief that the Catechism allows lying in specific circumstances after a previous article says that lying, by its very nature, is to be condemned (showing explicitly the “intrinsic” evil of lying) and articles far preceding this section show that circumstance and intent can never make an intrinsically evil act permissible…is to promote a break in one’s first intellective principles (the specific first intellective principle being that belief that contradiction cannot exist). Breaking one’s first principles make it impossible to have the supernatural virtue of faith, since the grace must have nature upon which to build. If the first intellective principles are broken…the nature necessary as a foundation for the supernatural virtue of faith is simply not there.
Another article in the Catechism (#2508) shows direct contradiction in what is written in the Catechism itself. It directly contradicts the article which states that lying, by its very nature, is to be condemned. That, which by its very nature, is to be condemned (i.e., intrinsic evil) cannot then be defined by one’s intent. It is either an evil act in and of itself or it is a neutral act made evil by intent. It cannot be both at the same time… This is readily explainable, however, since the Catechism is not protected by the Holy Spirit from error. It was not promulgated as binding on the assent of faith, but only as binding on religious assent. It can…and does contain error, vague/ambiguous statements, etc.
It’s like the Second Vatican Council, it should be read and interpreted in light of infallible teaching. Where there is no infallible teaching to back up what is there, one binds one’s self to the teachings with religious submission of the intellect and will…unless there is a “good reason” not to do so; what one cannot understand, one cannot possibly bind one’s assent to…and one cannot understand what contradicts itself, history or higher authority, as well as what is undefined.
Here is a good review, also, of what the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches regarding contradiction:
- God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
- Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.
This simply states that God cannot speak in contradictions…so if we see contradiction presented as truth, we can know with certitude it is not from God. We can also know that if a teaching is asserted which claims to be from God, yet is a contradiction, that the claim is totally false…since it would be teaching contrarily to what is stated in the First Vatican Council, Ch. 4 On Faith and Reason #6 and #7.
There is also an interesting passage in Scripture (John ch. 8 v. 39-45) as food for thought:
Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
I find it an interesting passage…does it mean that lies belong to the devil? and that the devil is the father of liars (liars being those who tell lies)?
– Nicole
